Check & trap! Are we back to the bad old days?

[caneworm]

There seems to be an emerging trend within the rat where command candidates (otherwise regarded as solid citizens) are washing out on the 767. Some of the stories coming out of the wobbly-box beggar belief.
Are they regressing to the bad old days of the late 90's?
Did they not learn anything from the 330 intro?

[mcgrath50]

For those not around in the bad old days can you elaborate as to what you actually mean? :ok:

[BAE146]

Sounds like the new Captains are not up to the same standard as the one's turned out in the "old days", so QF are going back to the training they did then to try an improve the situation.

This is probably being generated by the regulatory authority (not the Flight Department) and Qantas just have to comply.

[zube]

The new 737 commands are going through quickly and with no drama.

Almost like its a different airline innit.

[schlong hauler]

Qf 737 conversion is a very solid course nowdays. Classic and NG together with RNP and HUD. Bad enough trying to remember what to do on a daily basis as a line driver. Don't know or care about the 767 however I have heard fom people doing command conversion from the 737 whom said it was no real problem at all!

[parabellum]

The ones that have a problem with it are often the ones who fail. The prime reason for failure is lack of preparation based on the totally misconceived belief that everyone can pass a command course and 'failure' is not the individuals fault but the system's!

757/767 to B737-glass and back the other way should be a doddle, just do the bookwork, concentrate on Vol. One. No one is expected to memorise everything but a sound knowledge of the Ship's Library will ensure that you now where to find anything you want, invariably it is in the MEL.

[blueloo]

767 has had the course trimmed fairly significantly.

For the last 15 months the 767 has only had bad candidates. (Quite amazing really) This is both Captains and First Officers, although primarily Captains. (NB: very large tongue in cheek)

Luckily the training system is 100% so that it can so easily be put down to the candidates.

Hopefully now that a separate sub-internal wholly owned sub-non-sub external internal entity is wholly and sub running the Group Flight Training (ie Head completely detached and buried from the body) the cost non-transference will be hopefully a way of holding the lack of actual training accountable.

(If that last paragraph makes sense to someone then you know exactly what I mean :} )


And a final note: I do love the quote "Its the candidates" - This is possibly the most weak as piss excuse way of saying "the training is inadequate, but we have absolutely no clue of how or why this has occurred"

A training system needs to be adequate to train the strongest and weakest students. Yes there is a limit on what can be done - and no not everyone will pass - but you would have to think if you have employed and trained / maintained people standards over the years this would be a very small number of failures. At the moment QF has designed a system purely on cost containment.

[Keg]

A few command trainees washed out of command training early in 08. They were of a similar background with little previous experience of domestic ops and long term long haul flying as F/Os. A number of them are expected to get through with no dramas next time around after having had some additional time to acclimatise to the domestic scene. As for recent times, got any hard numbers caneworm? How many are we talking about?

Having gone through the 'system' not too long ago I'm probably in a decent place to understand what the system does and what it expects from the candidates. Having also spent my formative years as an F/O flying with Captains who graduated from the mid to late 90's 'system' I'm pretty confident that the current version is significantly different to what existed then. Occasionally some candidates will have some issues with individual instructors but by and large I found the instructors to be supportive, open and very keen to assist in identifying and rectifying any glitches in technique- flying or management.

All in all, unless there has been a spike within the last couple of months, the failure rates over the last 12-18 months have probably been no different to the previous few years.

767 has had the course trimmed fairly significantly.

From when? It hasn't changed in the last 12-18 months that I know of. Nine endorsement sims and then five 'COM' sims for those that haven't seen the aircraft before. Nine COM sims in total for those that have.

[blueloo]

I understand the trimming was down to 9 endorsement sims from around 11 - 13. (possibly more and this is not including the COM sims) Not sure exactly what it was although it was explained to us that number of sims have been reduced in line with the new CMS marking system. The guy who trimmed the course has since changed fleets. The guy who trimmed the course happened to do some of my sims.

I am sure you can find out and will correct me Keg - if I was told dud info then I am happy to be corrected.

If your already endorsed on the 767 its not a problem, but if your not then it becomes hard work.

The system should not just abandon people who have been on a particular type for a number of years - this is just another cop out.

I'll put the same disclaimer on that remark, in that yes there are limitations - but if someone does the work, they are motivated and they are not a 4 headed gimp, they should be catered for by the system.

['holic]

The way it was explained to me by the head of training was that the course had been shortened by 2 or 3 sims and was the absolute minimum they expected a candidate to pass in. They expected a significant percentage of students to require additional sims and they weren't too concerned about it if you did.

When I started the course last year, the failure rate was about 70%, mostly guys who hadn't been on type before. With numbers like that it can't just be the candidates. After all, each one has years of cyclic training records and possibly Command Assessment sims which have assessed them as being suitable for Command Training. There has to be a fault with either the assessment system or the training course.

The prime reason for failure is lack of preparation based on the totally misconceived belief that everyone can pass a command course and 'failure' is not the individuals fault but the system's!After talking to many checkies about this, bookwork is never the problem. In fact, of the guys that failed around my time, I've been told that their knowledge was excellent and if anything they had been a little over prepared. Basically it came down to lack of previous exposure to the 767 operation.

Sure, the individual has to take some responsibility for the failure, but as I suggested above, with numbers like 70% the system must share a significant portion of the blame.

[waren9]

Basically it came down to lack of previous exposure to the 767 operation.


FFS! Whos faults that? The candidates?:bored:

['holic]

Read the post. As I said (a couple of times :ugh:) the fault is with the system.

[blueloo]

holic - the only problem with They expected a significant percentage of students to require additional sims and they weren't too concerned about it if you did. is that to get given the extra sims, you must be marked "Not Proficient" -- ie "Failed." And whilst the intent is not to have someone marked as "failed" by using words such as "not proficient" - it is still seen by students as a failure.... and failing someone destroys their confidence.

In other words the to get the complete endorsement (as opposed to the minimum course if you are a top or above average student) you must be failed and have your confidence destroyed. Whilst that is a pretty bleak way of stating it - having spoken to a fair few guys it is the way many see it.

... unfortunately it is also what is fundamentally wrong with the longhaul training system.

['holic]

Totally agree. Even though they say it's not a fail, but additional training, it would be a pretty big psychological hurdle to jump over. As you well know, confidence is 90% of the battle.

Also, guys I've talked to have given me the impression that even though they say they're not worried if you fail a sim or two, it's a fairly rapid and slippery slope to the review board after that. In other words, it goes from one extreme to the other with not a lot in between.

IMHO, the biggest problem with the longhaul system is you don't have a dedicated instructor for each phase of training, like they do in shorthaul. At least that way, the instructor (and the training dept.) take a bit of ownership of a candidate's performance.

[waren9]

I did read the post. I'm agreeing with you, mate.

For a system to fail its candidates for lack of familiarity, you can hardly blame the candidate.

[mrdeux]

In 1992, there was a period in which the failure rate was very close to 100%. Curiously, that was immediately followed by another period in which the pass rate was very close to 100%. Neither the course nor the training personnel changed between those two periods.

Historically, the (first attempt) pass rate on the 767 was around 70%. Interestingly though, the pass rate for current 767 F/Os was the worst (out of 747 and 744 F/Os doing the command course). The actual conversion onto the aircraft wasn't the hard part.

I don't believe that domestic ops represent much of a challenge, and find it very hard to believe that they cause the problems the candidates are seeing. Perhaps migrating from one seat to another is rather more of a hurdle than some are prepared for..... It certainly isn't something that comes with the breakfast cereal, or for which there is a god given right.

[bushy]

I smell a military influence.

[mrdeux]

There was (and as far as I know still is) a very low rate of 'military influence'. Generally the % of military pilots in the training department has been well below their % representation on the line.

Anyway, what is your point?

['holic]

I guess the difference between '92 and now is that we've got the Command Assessment sims now, which are supposed to weed out those candidates who are likely to fail. In '92, generally, if you had the seniority you could have a go.

Domestic ops aren't that much of a challenge, it's just that they are something the student hasn't experienced before. When this is combined with the seat change, role change, total lack of local knowledge at the ports you operate into and you're in a checking environment it does become a big challenge.

[4Greens]

The 767 sim used to be a lot harder to fly than the aircraft, maybe it's the same now.

[oz in dxb]

G'day guys, wondering if someone could tell me the total time, amount of sims and line sectors from start to finish of a command course in QF.

Based on a current B767 F/O to B767 Captain.

Thanks,

Oz

[Keg]

Oz, nine sims. About 30(ish) sectors.

Blueloo et al. An important aspect of this is where the trainees are falling over. Is it the endorsement phase? 501-509. Is it the COM sims CM5- CM9?

CM phase? I 'fell over' in CM8 and did CM11 (or 12 or 13....don't remember). At the time it felt like a fail. One of my recommendations to the training team at the team was to advertise the CM part of the course as requiring 6 sims of which 5 were 'scheduled' but they didn't know which of the additional sims you would do until you were in the middle of it. Some wouldn't need the additional sim and get through in five whilst others may need an additional one- or two, or three. So hopefully that goes some way to the 'feeling like a failure' aspect. Whilst I felt like one after a couple of daft (and what I felt for me were uncharacteristic) stuff ups the 'system' certainly didn't treat me like one. The guys running the additional session were excellent and it gave me a lot of confidence for CM9.

However the CM phase is an eye opener. I expected to learn a lot but I was quite surprised at what some of the lessons ended up being. I thought I knew myself (and my mode of operation) pretty well but some of the outcomes from that phase were quite difficult to work through. Self doubt, self belief, coping with stress, were all things that I had dwelt with previously but the new insights were humbling and assisted in a greater insight into my operation.

There were a couple of frustrations in there too. A couple of 'lessons' required me to modify my operation and I was disappointed that 13 years of QF flying hadn't revealed those things to me previously and now I was having to modify my modus operandi. Perhaps some are lucky and don't need to, perhaps some aren't capable of doing that within the constraints of the 'system'.

Endorsement phase? I'd be surprised if there were many that didn't get through this. If not then I think that the focus really does have to go back onto the candidate. It's simply flying the aircraft to tolerances and there are enough good trainers out there to assist if the technique is lacking in the short term. Would lack of familiarity count here? Maybe but there is a fair bit of slack here and I haven't heard of many examples of people being 'chopped' in this phase without being given lots of extra training and opportunities.

Line Training? One of the comments I heard from many of the trainers was that many crew knew the books very well and could quote chapter and verse but couldn't 'manage' that on the line. An example was visual approaches where a discussion on the issue would have the candidate able to quote- in some cases verbatim- but then when cleared for one, couldn't manage the a/c systems to execute the maneuver whilst still meeting the legal requirements. Beyond that, many crew don't get through the line training for very specific and personal reasons. The constant I found was that all the trainers I had were excellent. I didn't enjoy my Pre final- mostly self induced- but had a GREAT time on my final.

Anyway, that's my take on some of the issues. Whilst I've been out of the system now for nearly five months I can't say that I saw much 'checking' during the process and felt that the training input was appropriate 90% of the time.

FWIW.

[haughtney1]

Reading this thread as a Non-QF outsider, I'm quite frankly amazed that there seems to be an under tone of tacit acceptance of a 70% or so pass rate for a command sim course.
Surely, if the training/checking apparatus was functioning correctly I would have expected an "enlightened" organisation such as QF to embrace a methodology based on identifying and rectifying potentially weak areas long before anyone was assessed as able to progress to a command upgrade.
Mayby I've been fortunate thus far in my airline flying exposure...I thought attitudes like this went out with the dark ages :sad:

[zube]

Holic.

The dedicated instructor thing you mention is a big factor.

Its been known about since QF were handed TN in the early 90's.

But the Sydney QF push wouldn't be told anything by the likes of a domestic airline and their training system.

Hence today 737 commands (shorthaul) go through rapidly with neglible fail rate, and the 767 group are discussing this on this forum like its some sort of rocket science. No one wants to lose face.

[A Comfy Chair]

Zube, the 767 training department have expressed many times their desire for paired flying so that you have a dedicated instructor for your line training.

Unfortuantely the Longhaul EBA currently prohibits them from assigning appropriate lines to training personnel so they are unable to do it.

[mrdeux]

Unfortuantely the Longhaul EBA currently prohibits them from assigning appropriate lines to training personnel so they are unable to do it.Oh. I thought that was why the captain computer runs were always done before the FO lines. Capts are assigned their lines, and then the trips to be blocked out for training are known for the FO run.

Long term pairing also means that you only pick up one point of view. If I recall correctly, I flew with 7 different check and trainers during my line training. It really wasn't an issue.

I would be concerned at a training system that had a negligible failure rate. Unfortunately, the system does have to have an element of checking in there somewhere. Gaining a command is not a god given gift. I've flown with many an FO who was obviously going to have trouble with the move, and many others who would obviously make good captains, and now are.

If anything I find it disturbing that you have so little idea of the role of the captain that you think the transfer should (more or less) just happen for 'solid citizens' (whom I might add are likely a lot less solid than you imagine).

[A Comfy Chair]

MrDeux,

That is correct, except that the Training Captains line is done using the normal bidding process. There are certain sectors that are needed to be done for training as you know (eg international sectors) and there is no guarantee that the training captains will be awarded these patterns. (A number of Training Captains are junior, or even rotate).

I'm only coming from the F/O training point of view (many years to go before having to worry about Command training :}) but I feel there is a balance to be struck between not enough, and too many opinions to absorb during training. I agree that its good to have more than one opinion, but I think I'd be overloaded having too many during line training!

One thing that has come out of my experience with the training department is that I have a renewed respect for what our recent successful command trainees have had to go through. 4 bars are certainly not handed out willy nilly in this company! :ok:

[mrdeux]

Reading this thread as a Non-QF outsider, I'm quite frankly amazed that there seems to be an under tone of tacit acceptance of a 70% or so pass rate for a command sim course.Firstly its not a command sim course. It's the entire command training, which is sims and flying.

And unfortunately, there is quite a large percentage, who, for whatever reason shouldn't/can't make the jump to command. 30% failure is not representative of that number; over half of them will pass on a subsequent attempt. Generally after doing a lot more work. The remainer, well, I've already said gaining a command isn't a god given right.

You can easily push the pass rate up to 100%: just lower the bar, or don't adequately check, or perhaps only allow those whom you know will pass to have a go in the first place.

[waren9]

...And unfortunately, there is quite a large percentage, who, for whatever reason shouldn't/can't make the jump to command. 30% failure is not representative of that number...


And what would that number be? Per hundred capts in QF, how many F/O's with enough seniority are not capts by virtue of not being able to pass an upgrade?

And how would that number compare with the rest of the industry?

[Keg]

I'd be very surprised if the number in the last 12 months was only 70%. I don't have the hard numbers but I would think that the likely figure would be closer to 85%.

waren9, I can't speak for the current regime in QF Flight Training (not Group Flight Training) but I know that the previous regime never sat back and 'accepted' any rate. They were always striving to improve the trainers and the system. They were very, very eager in seeking feedback on the various aspects of the course. They were open about areas that they felt they needed to improve.

So back to the original claim that the methodology had changed back to check and trap rather than an overt training environment. Some candidates may come across one or two trainers like that but by and large, that wasn't my experience, it wasn't the experience of my crash buddy, it wasn't the experience of other course mates who followed a month behind me, etc. I do know of a couple of candidates who have struggled with particular instructors and that's to be expected in a big organisation with lots of personalities. Others thought those trainers were great.

Anyway, my opinion FWIW.

[haughtney1]

mrdeux,

Slip of the keyboard I'm afraid..by command sim..I should have actually said command course:ok:

Keg, yeah mate 85% would be a far more representative number in airlines I've worked in..70% would indicate a failure in the system somewhere me thinks.
Anyway, goodluck to the QF 767 guys/gals...mayby one day you'll get luckly and have a play in a 757 :8

[Brian Abraham]

757??? Another slip of the keyboard? :=

[haughtney1]

No brian, merely comparing the a sportscar with a bus...:E I've flown both BTW

Sorry, thread drift

[Keg]

I asked the question earlier today regarding recent failures. The checkie didn't know of anyone NOT getting through since mid last year....probably 30-40 candidates?!?! A spike of a half dozen or so not getting through in the six-nine months prior to mid 08. Most had a common theme.