744 Mentoring Program

[ChuckECheeze]

Anyone? Thoughts?

[quadspeed]

It certainly raises some interesting questions. Why the need for it? Is the training department failing in their task, or are some individuals just too dumb to meet the standards? Is it a program designed for those keen individuals aiming for management, or for those having spent too many years making beds and reading The Economist while losing sight of whatever inspired them to get into aviation in the first place?

Why not join the Guild instead?

[From a distance]

Good opportunity for a tormentor to do a bit of tormenting.

[crwjerk]

Yes, has been discussed over beers at Staunton's. I think some people take this job FAR too seriously.

[Sqwak7700]

What are the pay-scales gonna be for these "mentors"??

Just another scam for Cathay to get something free of charge. This mickey-mouse ****t needs to stop, this isn't the local FBO. How about you get rid of the dead wood in the training department. You know EXACTLY who they are, nothing new here. You get rid of them, you won't need no "mentoring". Give me a break.:rolleyes:

Oh gee, can I borrow the keys to the 777 this weekend to go practice my touch-n-gos?...

... wait a minute - oh yeah, we already do that. :hmm::ugh:

[treboryelk]

this is another one of those "if you are not a CX captain, you know F*** all" gems isnt it, really! hate to say it, i do chew the fat on occasions with mates over a beer.....my mates? they may not be senior cathay hands but still have had 20 years in aviation flying everything from red arrows to UN charters dodging bullets in africa to float planes in mauritius etc etc etc

i dont need to talk to an old man with no life about flying thank you very much....because my mates are good enough to discuss flying with....on the rare occasions that we cant fill a conversation talking about tits and bums.

[treboryelk]

now MFL wouldn't be that bad mentoring over a beer.....****, there is a lot worse once outside the cockpit.

[broadband circuit]

I'm not on the 744, so excuse my ignorance, but what is this mentoring program?

[VR-HFX]

My understanding is that it is a program that invites some of us to try and teach a number of younger colleagues, who may having trouble mind-reading, to ignore what is said and try to understand what is MENT ....although I must say doing the bumtittybumtittybum routine in Lapland with trebor might be more fun.:bored:

[Captain Dart]

I'll be a mentor...for pre-COS 99 A Scale training allowance. When do I start chaps?

[BPQA]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Please review the following from the HKAOA Update 11th August, 2009:

Industry News

"In his keynote address to the 2009 ALPA International Air Safety Forum, FAA Administrator, Captain Randy Babbit, told delegates that if the industry is to reach the next level of safety it is vital that every member of the profession raise the safety bar “if you think standards are good enough then your standards are too low.” He further challenged delegates to take the experience and knowledge they have gained and pass it on to new pilots entering the industry. “Now is not the time to be ‘the Captain of few words’ if you are not mentoring and passing on your experience you are doing the profession a disservice.”

Turning his attention to the development of new standards for flight and duty time regulations, Captain Babbit said that the industry is dealing with rules that were made in the era of piston airliners and have little relevance to today’s environment. “The fact remains that we have the data to hand to help us to develop rules that are rooted in science and take into account the best fatigue data available. To do anything else would be a failure.”

The HKAOA fully supports the sentiments expressed by Captain Babbitt."

[konovalov]

Mentoring program....
Good!! We ALL need mentoring do we??
Chaps, I know it' s hard for you now but few years from now you' ll be in that left seat spewing out the same bollocks we say now and even worse.Then, you' ll remember the days when Cn so and so was jettisoning all over you as good old memories.
Enjoy the ride.Just make sure to stay on the right horse.......................

[HeavyWrenchFlyer]

Hmmm, could this be because they see an standardization problem and trying to fix it?!? They are very misguided if they think this sceme is capable of fixing anything. The books are very poorly written, the company does not put down detailed SOPs in writing and striclty enforce their adherance, which means they don't understand the very first meaning of standardization, trainers/checkers each have their own ideas about what is standard and what's not and you can't keep even two of them happy no matter what you do! So there's no shortage of people who are confused about what they're supposed to do and not. Add to that the occasional official email telling us how this is a thinking pilot's airline and we don't want to put everything in writing so there's flexibility etc... The result should not be surprizing to anyone! In aviation, if it's not in writing, it's not standard. Word of mouth is worthless in this business. Throw away the current books, and re-write them. Take a look at the other airlines operating the same equipement & routes and you'll see what I mean! This place revolves around vol. 8s... cheating!! Establish solid standards and enforce them strictly. Get rid of checkers that spread their own personal ideas and prefrences in the name of "this is what they want you to do" instead of pointing out what the book says and expect you to do it that way!

It's an old problem which has an old solution as I mentioned above. There are too many FAA, CAA, NASA and NTSB reports and various books written on the subject if one cares to know! Cathay library carries a few of them by author Tony Kern. When there's a lack of performance issue in an organization, there's always an organizational shortcoming at the core of it. As they say, "garbage in, garbage out"! If you don't like the factory's final product, set tighter standards and make sure they're adhered to! Like any other system that produces a product. If a mistake is made which damn nearly results in a disaster, modify the related SOPs so it's not likely someone else makes the same mistake. SOPs can never be set in stone, becuase people keep inventing new ways of f'ing it up, that's the nature of it! Stop telling people "we put that in the book just to align our procedures with Boeing, but we actually don't want you to do that" unless you have no regard for the standardization mayham and utter confusion that statement will cause on the line!

Establish solid SOPs, present them in well written form, enforce their adherance. Mentoring programs are for amateurs getting started in something for the first time. Have more respect for your troops. They need proper clear guidance & standards to follow and your backing for doing so! That's also called leadership!

Don't even get me started!

[Liam Gallagher]

your post "seems" contradictory. You say...

"...the company does not put down detailed SOPs in writing and striclty enforce their adherance",... and then you say...

"SOPs can never be set in stone, becuase people keep inventing new ways of f'ing it up, that's the nature of it!"

I have highlighted the word "seems", as your post encapsulates one of the many problems any industry encounters when it tries to document or script responses to dynamic and unpredictable situations.... whether that be a surgeon or the guy at McD's

Whilst I am skeptical about the mentoring program (as I can guess what type of person will go for it:ugh:), I sense what they want to do is pair people up so you learn/challenge the inevitable intangibles in a less threatening environment.

The best example I can give you is the CTWO brief; one guy can brief and you think he is a good operator, another and you think he is a shambles/tosser. One guy will subsequently pass his command course, the other wont. They both may say the same words, but convey a completely different impression.

I would hope under a mentoring program the environment would be such your mentor would tell you straight and direct what impression you give and how to correct. You can then mull it over and go back to the line and try it out. Sadly, the reality will be a 4 hour argument (in colour) about whether or not you should, or should not, brief the 07 engine inop or whether the MSA is based on the VOR or the airport; because we are "big picture" operators ugh::rolleyes:

[Sqwak7700]

HWF, I couldn't have said it better myself. You are spot on on all your comments. :D

Unfortunately, as you mentioned, what are the chances that they will re-write every single book? I agree with you, that is what is needed in this place. I just hope it doesn't take some bent metal to bring it about.

[konovalov]

Standardisation?
Which CX manual include this word?? :}

[HeavyWrenchFlyer]

I guess Liam needs a little clarification! Over long term, SOPs are fluid. But over short term they are set solid and uncompromising. The organization is responsible for establishing firm and solid standard operating procedures which are set in stone or concrete, whatever you want to call them! But since people have a special talent to come up with new and inventive ways to f'k up, each time there's an event a serious look should be taken at how a procedure could be changed or a new one added to prevent the next guy from making the same mistake. SOPs need to be amended from time to time for that reason. But until they are, they have to be 'set in stone' and enforced striclty or they're worthless.

If an organization has an event that's a near disaster and no changes are made to the SOPs to prevent it from happening again, then that organization is not even reactive! And unless we're doing the best to be proactive, not just reactive, we can't say we're doing everything we can to be safe.

That's why when there's an accident and NTSB, FAA, CAA etc... investigate they recommand or establish new rules to keep the next dumbass from repeating the same mistake again. Afterall, the very definition of stupidity is to keep doing the same thing and expect a differrent result, isn't it?!?

A mentoring program amounts to no more than, monkey see monkey do! Put in writing what exactly you want me to do and I'll do it every time right down to the last detail! I won't be aspiring to be like someone else nor will I pay any attention to what he has to say unless he's standard & by the book. And in that case if I'm too stupid to read and follow the book after I've already been trained and qualified, then I'm just falt out stupid and have no business flying aircraft.

An efficient and comprehensive training program is the starting point for all of this. A 'do it yourself training' system with almost no classroom instruction and an utter lack of consistency among trainers/checkers especially the senior ones (we've got some class A trainer/checkers that do it all by the book and are the best there is, not to offend them here) cannot be expected to produce a constant and standard product. This is how you ge surprises with guys already qualified and online being assessed as needing more attention such as more sectors, mentoring, extra sim time, double check rides, etc... Mentoring already qualified line pilots is trying to fix the problem at it's ass end! Establishing efficient training and solid SOPs is starting at the begining!

[SMOC]

Off topic or maybe not, but I'm hearing rumors (3X) of two F/Os having fistycuffs while in the seats, broken up by Capt either returning from or woken up from rest. :ouch:

[cluin44]

Expect the wrong people to volunteer to be mentors. The right people won't be interested in PopGun Larard wanking.

[cxorcist]

HWF,

Great posts, very well thought out. I cannot argue anything you wrote. However, CX is a very proud airline with an excellent safety record. Until there is (God forbid) an accident here, the senior leadership will not see a safety culture problem because there is no financial incentive to do so. Furthermore, there is a substantial financial disincentive to bringing attention on any existing problem. Additional safety costs money. So we will continue to see pawns at the FOP level which proudly fly the flag with little or no variation from the present. Anyone potentially revolutionary will be minimized, converted, fired, or never hired in the first place. Change will be slow to nonexistent.

[sisyphos]

HWF is spot on. The guys on the 3rd floor ( at least on the 744) do show some encouraging signs, but all those trainers who think their way of doing things is the only acceptable way, that is the root of the problem. How often you hear them start a debrief : "Well, the way I do this.." :yuk:

You can't change a company culture over night, granted, but clearly I am sick and tired of this constant F/O bashing in every training newsletter. If we have higher failure rates than other major airlines (with more experience in the right hand than most other airline!) than this is clearly a management failure.


Typical street conversation that tells it all :

A: " I have a sim / line check tomorrow "
B: " Oh, who with ? "



Oh, and I also agree with HWF that we actually do have some really great trainers.

[nitpicker330]

When are you guys going to learn.

Rightly or wrongly this Airline ( like a lot of others ) is a Captains Airline.

I don't say I agree with it but it is, so accept it, smile and move on.

3 words after a dumb stupid crap debrief:-- O I C

then take some notes to look interested and keen then do it the way you want later.

PLAY THE GAME fellas.

I was once told by a BTC that "some checkers have an excellent grasp of the non-essential"

[HeavyWrenchFlyer]

............

[EXEZY]

Every airline is a "Captains Airline", so whats your point?

[nitpicker330]

this is another one of those "if you are not a CX captain, you know F*** all" gems isnt it, really! hate to say it, i do chew the fat on occasions with mates over a beer.....my mates? they may not be senior cathay hands but still have had 20 years in aviation flying everything from red arrows to UN charters dodging bullets in africa to float planes in mauritius etc etc etc

i dont need to talk to an old man with no life about flying thank you very much....because my mates are good enough to discuss flying with....on the rare occasions that we cant fill a conversation talking about tits and bums.


It's this attitude form some FO's that really gets me steamed up.


You need to stop bitching about the old farts in the left seat.
Maybe you have/could learn something from us?


Every Captain should pass on "tips" "advice" etc to the FO or SO. I know that I certainly listened and remembered advice given by the good Captains I flew with. They knew what they were doing and had a really good way of imparting their experience. Most times they wont have to say anything, just lead by example.
( As a Captain you can and do learn from the FO, new ways of doing things etc. It is a 2 way street. )

At all times ( and especially on checks )as an FO you have to develope a good "bull**** filter" take on-board what you think is good and relevent and dump the rest.

Like I said the 3 words to live by when a CC de-briefs you with his own rubbish opinions: OIC

[Pathos]

Like I said the 3 words to live by when a CC de-briefs you with his own rubbish opinions: OIC

Well said Nitpicker330. As they say "I'll make a note of that".

[Mooseflyer]

Why not "WTF are you talking about, I'm trying to read my magazine here."

Sorry nitpicker, had to throw that one out there. Don't get steamed ;).

[SeldomFixit]

And that Moose, is the fallacy in your argument - you drive the train set IAW the owners wishes - not yours. Captains. F/O's, GM's, are employees. Get it ?:ugh:

[Mooseflyer]

You're absolutely right Seldom. As long as the paychecks keep coming in, I'll spout the altimeter changeover 5 minute discussion, flap retraction brief, flap extention brief, gear retraction brief, or whatever else is required. I'm "fully ready".

Note: edited post before above reply.

[sisyphos]

1.) the "owners" have absolutely no clue what is going on in the cockpit, hence they can't possibly have any say in what we should / should not do. Parts of the management have started their own little flying club with their own rules, nothing to do with what the " owners" want / don't want. It is arrogant and ridiculous of any trainer to think the way HE does it is the way the " owners" want him to be. Does anyone really think NR is happy about a 9 month upgrade course ,with all the costs involved ,and then, at the very end, a negative dubious star board decision ? Or would a shareholder = " owner" wonder weather it is rudder or rudders ?

2.) the " OIC mentality " is not very helpful, because it won't lead to any change, and sometimes it doesn't even help you. Albeit I agree that it is often the only viable short time solution.

3.) the problem is the inconsistency among the trainers ( read : the differences between the good guys and the anal c@nts). What the latter fabricate is a disgrace , the first group of fellow trainers even secretely admits that. I find it also very interesting that the " OIC " trainers are usually the weakest in terms of their own flying skills.

[HeavyWrenchFlyer]

The OIC mentality is exactly what's wrong! Nothing shortcircuits standardization more than that stupid idea. I sure hope anyone who's feeling weak enough at this point in their career to feel the need to be mentored is at least smart enough to not follow the OIC crowd! The OIC mentality is the exact opposite of professionalism, self respect and self confidence. And it's true that the OIC types are always the weak ones when it comes to their overall performance in the cockpit. No matter which seat they're in, or how long they've been around. Or for that matter if they're checkers or trainers. If you establish a solid operation for yourself according to the SOPs (the book) you can call yourself a professional and feel like one... If you operate in the OIC manner, you'll always be acting, looking and feeling like the scared confused little sh!t you've chosen to be and nothing more!

A bit harsh I know, but the truth usually is!

[nitpicker330]

Yes and I suppose you sit there shaking your head and tell the STC ( or BTC ) what they are saying is wrong and full of bollocks. I then expect you'd tell them the way they should be training/checking.

Maybe you'd get away with that as a Senior Captain but you wouldn't stand a hope in hell as a SO or FO. Unless the STC/BTC was a good man and listened to your polite reasoning. If he was a good man then he most likely wouldn't be telling you crap in the first place.

Just remember who is writing your ERAS and how much power that person has to ruin your whole career in CX.

Sad, unfortunate, but true.

Play the game.

If you want to really improve the training checking department then wait until you've become a STC or a BTC yourself and then have a go. Until then you are just pissing in the wind with all your bravado. At the very least you'll make a name for yourself amoungst the trainers and that is not good.:=

[HeavyWrenchFlyer]

................

[nitpicker330]

Trainers aren't normally just picked behind closed doors and then let out. They get assessed over 4 sectors by a STC in the jump seat, receive ground training and then receive extra training sectors. You know that as well as I do.

I spent years in the right seat here and didn't live in fear from the Check and Training Dept. I did my job as best I could and kept moving forward in the system.

Then I earned the left seat, something that being a Captain under probation ( ie FO ) prepared me for.

Yes CX isn't perfect, the books are not as good as they could be and some checkers have their own way.................I venture to suggest that 99% of all Airlines would be the same.


Move on...........this is getting boring.........

[cxorcist]

Get over it HWF man...

Done with this thread.

[Liam Gallagher]

Whilst I don't necessarily disagree with you, I also don't accept things are that bad and I have seen real improvements in the past 2 years or so.

You seem to experiencing something different to me on the flight deck, so to help me visualize what you are experiencing, can you please give some examples of where;

1. The manuals, particularly the FCOM3/FCTM, is insufficient. Under what circumstances do you find vagueness or ambiguity?

2. What examples have you seen where a checker has operated in contravention of a published procedure.

Not sure what you mean by this....

"Do you realize there's no training given or standards to be met before becoming a trainer or checker here?!? One is somehow deemed fit somewhere behind closed doors and knighted..."

Apart from a thorough review of your file, possibly a training assessment flight by a Management pilot, then a Ground school/sim package then a number of sectors as a trainer-under supervision followed by a training check on a real stude.... then periodic standardization checks by Mangagement pilots/CAD (I observed one of these first hand and even my b@lls ached)... I suppose you are right there is no training or standardization.

If you object to the fact you have to be "liked" by the Fleet office, particularly the Chief Pilot, before you become a C&T, then I concede there is a large element of nepotism in the system..... but then again the buck stops with the Chief Pilot as regards Training Standards on his fleet, so can you blame him for personally scrutinizing his C&T staff.

[HeavyWrenchFlyer]

....................

[cxorcist]

HWF,

You have the wrong guy, but I think I know to whom you write. Next time I see him I'll pass along your kind words.

Cheers,

cxorcist

[HeavyWrenchFlyer]

..............