All Checking now!

[coded_messages]

Wondered when this would eventually happen, just been told by a colleague that all RT's are now to be graded with a write up. They really should've changed the code to RC (Recurrent Checking)

Looking forward to my RC/PC in March

Some people just don't get it... :ugh: Well done boys :ok:

[Harbour Dweller]

If you read the NTC you will note that write ups / comments are not required in all cases.

For the majority there will be no difference other than somebody reinventing the wheel.

[ab33t]

I agree any RC not up to standard would be flagged in a check ride

[jonathon68]

This should not be a change for the worse.

RT remains training (although, a handful of Sim Instructors seem to be fond of using lots of "red ink"). They will not change. There will always be a few "check Nazi's", whatever progressive changes take place within the remainder of the training/checking system.

The new RT report form defaults to "S", meaning "no comment required". If the entire session is "satisfactory training to reach line check standard", then all the SI has to do is open the report (to defaults) and click submit.

Currently, many SI's type in a sentance to the effect that "satisfactory training to reach line check standard" was completed. Now, emphatically they don't even have to to do that. This would be the easy option for most SI's (those with a life), who do their training in debriefing's and then go home.

If we go from "satisfactory training to reach line check standard" to "some training input is required to achieve line operational standard", then brief comments are required. This is subtly different to "satisfactory training to reach, etc". However, basically it is the same as we have now.

The new code of NT (not trained) is an improvement, in that it by-passes the need for the SI or STC to waste time writing lengthly explainations about previous session overuns/sim breakdown issues/fire alarms etc.

I sat through a long briefing, some time ago about these forthcoming changes to the training system, and despite being generally a sceptic about such issues was mostly "won over".

The idea is that eventually all training and checking will be classified

satisfactory (no comment required, but optional)
satisfactory with training or checking input (brief comment)
unsatisfactory (and obviously comment)
or not trained or checked/could not be carried out or completed.This was driven from above by Training Management's quest to find out what really needs to be trained and re-trained. Currently, as we all experience, much time can be wasted in some area's and yet remains needed in other areas.

Under the old system we rotate through a fixed 3 year cycle of standard competencies, regardless of who we are, how skilled we are and what fleet we are on.

There is however a huge difference in competency and training needs between Pilots as they go in and out of the CX training system. You could, for example see a HKG 777 Captain (on type for >7 years) paired with a NAM FO (CX for <2-3 years).

Ultimately there will be the capability to tailor our training/competency progress individually. The new RT grading classification is an early step in that direction.

The training ssystem is moving towards a day when two Pilots will meet up for their 6 monthly Sim sessions, with both the regulatory common training areas required and also some personally identified areas to be trained. So, if V1 cuts had been identified as an issue for the F/O, and perhaps workload management or visual approaches for the Captain, then those areas will be the training targets for the SI. The goal is actually better training.

I shall now take cover from the sceptics.....

[The Wraith]

Jonathan,
I would like to agree with you, and were this an airline such as BA or Lufthansa etc, I probably would.
But this is Cathay, I'm afraid, and we all know what goes on here.
I remain quietly optimistic but still very sceptical. I hope it is you that turns out to be right!:ok:

[4 driver]

Some of the SIM instructors are idiots. These guys are going to be writing in our training files????
On my fleet there are three in particular that I have absolutely no respect for, and I let them know that. The other dozen or so are excellent and I have picked up a few things from them.
Does the Star Chamber really want to make assesements based on some over the hill/out of touch individual? Oh wait....that's 20% of our check and training department too.....

[CXtreme]

Johnathan68,
Reading your post I agree the intention is good. But I have to say that The Wraith have reminded us of the CX culture.

If you attend a C.R.M. course at CX the intention and "company support" sounds great.... we all know the reality is completely different. I clearly remember being told by a senior company doctor that the company encourage people to call in sick when they suspect they might not be well rested or might fall sick down line. And the reality is??

Crew control have one mission, putting bud's on seats, no regard for sensible rosters. Training scheduling want to keep you current with no regard for "compatibility."

Some instructor's just can't help themselves and feel they have not done their job unless they write a comment.

Not a pessimist, only a realist.

[FlexibleResponse]

Like it or lump it, you are on check every day of your working life with CX from the day you join till the day you leave. And I mean all of us from the newest to the most senior fleet captain.

This includes the public visible parts of your non-operating life as well, so if you get thrown into jail on an overnight and it gets into the local papers...well guess what.

If you try hard, your checkers and trainers and mentors will fall over themselves trying to help you. But if you carry on like an ar$ehole...then you will treated like an ar$ehole. No surprises there....

Every thing you do is a check...and is reportable. That is now the nature of professional aviation.

New rules are being used and further formulated to check us for alcohol and drugs. And I predict that not too far away they will also be trying to check us for fatigue and sanity...

[Vince Brown]

Some of those 400 sim instructors are FREAKS! with a capital F! They literally live and work in a loony bin! No wonder they're strange.

[HEALY]

checks for fatigue and sanity......wont leave much of the pilot group left then:}

[Night Watch]

The problem is that some (not all) of the Sim instructors at CX and KA know F#@k all about flying the line. They interpret the FCOMs and QRH as they see fit and have no idea about the practical application.

I have experienced this first hand by a useless Airbus Sim instructor during a RT. After an in depth discussion on the fundamental laws of aerodynamics and how it pertained to what he believed the QRH said... He said "Well I believe that I'm right and your wrong. I'll write it up in your report and let the powers that be decide". Now by the time I could get around to talking to the "Powers that be", the RT had been signed off. The Sim instructor had been proven wrong by all the "Powers that be", however they said to me that once the training report had been signed off, it couldn't be changed. All I got was cc'd on an email to the Sim instructor explaining the fundamental laws of aerodynamics from the "Powers that be". Not so much as an apology from the **** for the bull **** that is now on my file.

Sim instructors should NOT be able to write ANYTHING on your ERAS, as most of them are washed out airline wannabees with no clue as to what they are saying on your Training file and how others read and interpret what they wrote.

[hongkongfooey]

Hey, quit yer bitchin' :E
Day 1, first up, we get in and do the PC, and u guys reckon CX is bad :{
We got the stupid CX boeingbus procedures/checklists but no sign of anything resembling training ( Sorry, am I allowed to use the " T " word on here ? )
On a brighter note, like everything else in HK, they should catch up to the late 90's thinking ( sims are for training ) in 20 years or so.
Happy New Year :ok:

PS, yes, as uncle Jeff keeps telling us, we do a lot of sectors, get a lot of practice, but unfortunately not many MTOW V1 cuts, o/weight EOI ILS with MApp, NPA with circle, out on the line :confused:

[Steve the Pirate]

Training should be training - period. The problem is that some in the C & T department are unable to make the distinction between training and checking (not all - some are exceptional trainers/checkers). This is going to be made even worse with the introduction of this "training by checking" philosophy. In principle it all sounds great but I have serious doubts as to how the training management are going to utilise this system effectively.

Still, I don't suppose we should worry too much because it'll all change again in a few years' time!

STP

[Five Green]

Jonathon :

So if I read between the lines we will have personalised recurrent training sessions. Each pilot will be handed his training requirements on the day for whatever areas have been deemed wanting.

So you will have no idea what you will be covering in the RT. This might be ok at any other airline but will result in much writing indeed.

The new system actualy implies that you should be able to show up and "pass" the RT without any training input. If you do require training (god forbid) you will then get a write up. As has been very rightly pointed out it is these written comments that are then interpreted wrongly and cause a fair amount of grief with line crew.

What needs to be added is the ability for the trainee (or "check"ee) to add comments.

What needs to be added is time for the candidate to practice (in a real non jeopardy situation) something He/She feels needs to be practiced.
Not practicing something that has been chosen by the great proficiency tracking machine.

As for the grading the RT should be complete or incomplete, and that is it !!

[Vince Brown]

At my old airline we had to read and counter sign off on the reports before they were submitted to the training department.

These guys are becoming a joke, and with the current exchange rate it's actually not that good a package.

[MetalAeronaut]

How about covering the core basics of the line operation starting from air work (stalls, unusual attitudes, steep turns), precision approach, non-precesion approach, RNAV/VNAV approach, windshear, TCAS, emergency descent, eng. failure, etc... trained and checked to ATP standards. Change the terminal environment twice a year to reflect our specific operating environment. You're either within standards or you bust something by so much. What needs to be trained is old news. If someting new comes about, then add that too. It's when you try to get too fancy with wha't more relevent and what's less relevant that things get confused and muddled. Because there aren't two people out there with relevence meters of same sensitivity level. Just cover everything or you'll leave gaps behind which some people won't be able to cross without difficulty if at all.

This is what you get with an outfit that's so top heavy.

[Steve the Pirate]

Metal

I think you'll find that's what CQP is, i.e. a rolling 3-yearly syllabus which covers what you call the core basics (without steep turns!). I think the requirements are laid down by CAD and then woven into what we now see as our RT(or should I say RC?)/PC. The problem as I see it is that the RT is often so full it becomes negative training as the SIs try to complete the content, often regardless of the standard. I think they're under a lot of pressure to be able to sign off the session so that the PC can go ahead as planned.

I don't think it's got anything to do with how top-heavy the outfit is, rather the lack of emphasis on training and focussing on checking instead. It seems that CX is intent on going back to the good old days of training by checking, only this time under the disguise of some programme which supposedly can target training to the individual.

STP

[onprofile]

Sooner or later ( I hope never) CX will have an accident. The lawyers will have a field day with the unnecessary BS written in the pilots training files by the personal agenda brigade.
When will CX wake up ? After the appeal has been denied I suspect.

[yokebearer]

I particularly enjoyed getting written up during a check for not responding to training - right after it was explained to me by the STC that he is doing a check on me in the capacity of a CAD examiner and therefore there will be no inputs/training from him during the session......:ugh:

[Tornado Ali]

Yokebearer. I couldn't stop laughing when I read this...but then I couldn't stop crying! This story describes better than any other the problems we face in this area. Enlightened companies only comment 'passed' or 'needs further training (failed). You wonder why the obvious seems to pass our management by?

[Five Green]

One of the problems that has always plagued our illustrious CandT dept. is the lack of control over the individual trainers. The bulk of whom, are amazing pilots who are more than capable of passing on their invaluable experience. It is the minority that account for the negative image and moral associated with our Check and Training departments.

Sadly, there are those (Line pilots and management all know who they are) that are just plain destructive. As the airline grows and along with it the training department, the willingness to keep individuals who clearly are not doing the job must end. If your check and training record stands out from the bell curve you should be looked into. Just as all line pilots whose training stands out should be given more attention.

The only reason anyone has ever given for keeping destructive check and trainers around is the outdated concept that they are hard to replace. Bullocks. Replace them and get the respect back that the check and training department deserves. Drop the old boy network. In a company where everybody's performance is continually weighed and measured, how these individuals can continue costing the company money, and negatively impacting careers as they do, is inexplicable.

Oh, and while you are at it, improve the communication between your check and trainers and the training department. Have the standards guys ride on more checks, especially of those that have a higher "failure" rate. As time goes on there are individuals whose ideas drift, they are then checking to their own standards without the knowledge of the training department, and no way for the training department to keep them in check. (pun intended).

If FOP management wants a few bulldogs around to use training as a discipline tool then we will NEVER have a respected, modern, efficient training department that actually improves the skills of line pilots.

I for one, will be watching the upcoming merge of "senior" and "flexible" fleets to see who comes out on top !! Can you tell who I am rooting for ??

Safety first !!

Peace out.

[Alpor]

As with more progressive airlines, the first sim each year should be the PC (and the PC should be conducted only once per year).
This should be the basic level of competence that we should be able to achieve 365 x 24/7 - we owe this to our customers. We may need some extra practice to achieve this - due to lack of sectors and the fact that ac are very reliable - and perhaps the tests should always be conducted on how we would fly the ac if things started to go wrong i.e using the automatics. Any report generated from the PC should merely state "pass" (if it was passed to the required standard - with or without repeats) or "refresher training required" (if outside the standard). There should be no numerical grading - it is too subjective and achieves nothing.
For those that required refresher training and a retest, then that should be provided. The other 3 simulator details per year should concentrate on manual flying refresher training (which we all need), the other required Schedule11 items (e.g.rapid depressurization), and LOFT exercises to extend our professional expertise. These reports should simply say "completed" or "not completed" but could provide an opportunity for the instructor to comment positively on a good performance.
De-personalized data could be retained to identify areas that might need more emphasis in refresher training.
Unfortunately I suspect that management at the higher levels is unlikely to move in this direction.

[MetalAeronaut]

Yes Steve, thank you very much for stating the obvious! Those are the basics I was suggesting we should stick to. Whatever is done, it has to be consistent across the board. A lot less subjectivity and a lot more objectivity. They seem unable to acheive any level of consistency throughout the training or checking system. As the yanks say, It's like a box of chocolates... you never know what you're going to get! Too many personal preferrences are thaught as absolutes and too many wild ideas among those preferrences to make matters worse. Simlify, make consistant, put it in writing.

And for ****'s sake if you're going to continue to have this writeup system and in fact expand it, provide a serious essay writing class for these chaps so when it all comes out in public during a lawsuit (sooner or later), it's not so embarressing to read the 3rd grade level writing some of these chaps muster!

[Steve the Pirate]

Metal

Sorry I get it now - how naive of me! I'm embarresed as it's one of my personal preferrences to see through ironny. I'd better go on an essay writing course so that I can distinguish ironny more consistantly. Finally thanks for highlighting the inadequacies of my post and not pointing out anything obvious in yours. You are a scholer.

STP

[treboryelk]

make sure that essay writing course has a spelling module included!

[Steve the Pirate]

Only following Metal's excellant example....

STP

[sleepykangaroo]

First of all Training is training and it should not be used as a personal agenda of some trainers to look good themselves.

If one gets employed by an airline one should be more than knowledgeable on the simple aerodynamic and other basic stuff. A lot of it is training bluff and nothing else. A very good standard can only be achieved by good attitude from all.

Training is the the core of the company's safety. Training with the wrong attitude is not only bad in itself but also causes a safety issue. It is just a question of who is on the right side.

:ok:

[MetalAeronaut]

Just having a litle fun with you... put your nickers back on laddies. There's nothing wrong with my speling anyway.