Check and Training.

[bridgeport]

I would like to posit a question. How good is our check and training department ?
I know this has been discussed before, but after my fleet forum last month, I just can't help myself.

For the last several years, according to fleet forums and discussions with STC's, our command failure rates vary between about 30-70%.

Those failed candidates, would have joined the company, generally from 4 possible entry points. Everyone in my batch (about 12 guys) was one of the first 3.

1. Jet experience.
2. ex-military.
3. Turbine captains
4. HK cadets with a degree in a hard science.

They would then spend about 12 years in apprenticeship, during which time they should have done at least 60 sims, which equals about 240 hours training. 12 line checks as well as all the other ancillary stuff we know and love.

So.... such experienced guys come into the company, some with years of command experience... get 12 years of 'training', and still fail commands at the rate of 40-70%.

What does that tell you about the 'training' system that we are exposed to ?

I would suggest, it tells us the company culture systematically destroys many of the command skills that people arrive with.

[asianeagle]

Probably cos the 12 yrs of "training" you talk about involves box ticking exercises, Vol 8's, unrealistic training exercises, cost cutting, min sectors to TPE and back, some really bad trainers doing the checks (not all), management insistence on micro managing, the Cathay Way, our inability to hand fly aeroplanes at any time other than from 500' on the ILS etc etc etc

Did I miss anything??

We aren't as good as we think we are!

[Arfur Dent]

In most 'normal' Airlines, the career progress from Right to Left seat is just that. It is assumed that all the 'wrinkly bits' will be ironed out during the early years in the Company and you then wait your turn. The 'course' involves a few Sims to get used to the physical move itself (I have never heard of anyone having a problem) and about 6 or so Line Trips to get used (and be 'trained') to calling the shots, then probably a couple of checks and THAT'S IT!
Cathay treat people as though they have never seen them before so 40-70% actually fail the course. That is completely outrageous and (CX language for the 9th Floor - MUST BE COSTING A FORTUNE).
A previous CX manager who went to be DFO at GSS changed their 'command course' to about 12 sectors. Almost 100% pass rate too.
There isn't much Training but lots of Checking. People who are paid to Train and don't should be kicked out of the Dept. When did that last happen??
Anyway - been like this for decades and won't change.:{

[Hugo Peroni the IV]

Failure rates get really interesting when you look more closely. About 30 very senior FO's chose to upgrade on the bus from the 747 because all Boeing upgrades were not available for a significant time. About 2 didn't make it.

That's a 93% pass rate. Is it the system, the candidate or is it really true that real men can fly jumbo jets and the rest pansy around on their light twin?

[Basil]

CX C&T is 'something else' BUT they appear to have a low accident and incident rate.

[744drv]

Better to be lucky than good!

[JY9024]

I would like to add one comment to this, or in fact ask a simple question.
During the 12 year apprenticship that has been mentioned and the 60 odd sim checks, how many of these guys actually turn up to their check without a copy of the instructor notes and a few laps around the chosen airport in the IPT.
I believe it's a letdown of the current system where a pilot can obtain, in advance the majority of what will be expected of him throughout all aspects of checking within he airline, and then for the command course he is expected to be able to pull it all together with absolutely no heads up on what is coming.
I believe some really good, experienced operators have been let down by this exact scenario..

Just my opinion...

[bridgeport]

CX C&T is 'something else' BUT they appear to have a low accident and incident rate.

That is very true. Maybe this is why management sticks with the current formula. It produces the quality of captain's that they want.
And I would agree that our captains do the job well. I have only flown with 2 guys I have thought not up to the job.

and then for the command course he is expected to be able to pull it all together with absolutely no heads up on what is coming.

I agree with this as well.
In all my sims, I have yet to see another pilot with a methodical decision making process which can be applied to most scenarioas. And a couple of times I have been criticized for using mine... because it slows down the session. Even though my process takes about 2 minutes to do (assuming it doesn't pick up any problems).
Negative training right from day 1, because as 9024 says, we know the scenario before walking in, and are expected to rush through it, ticking boxes as we go, with no thought to any methodology involved.

[bm330]

The PCs have become so canned that there is not much to them. This makes the RT so over-crammed with elements that there is no way to get through it all unless you rip past everything. There is no Training in the Training sim because there isn't time to do anything except reposition for the next sequence.

I'd like more fuel for this 'real life' scenario - Sorry, the numbers are for CFP

I wouldn't take off into severe icing - Sorry, that's what the script says to do

[Radix]

..........

[McNugget]

He didn't say that;

I believe he was saying that the guys in charge are using the mantra 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'... The company are rightfully happy with the safety record of the company, so in theory, why change it?

[JY9024]

One other point I would like to put out there from the original post.

I'll use the turbo prop captain as an example, the pilot has about 5 - 10 years experience as a captain prior to joining CX, then spends 10 to 12 years flying with a multitude of commanders in an airline that where possible takes all the thought process out of our decision making on a day to day basis. We have CFP, CLS, RTOW, CPDLC, IOC and a multitude of other systems in place to do the decision making for us.
Part A is designed to cover just about every scenario.
We don't even have operational control of the a/c until the doors are closed..

So the experienced FO who is considered based on his prior experience to be a sure bet at a command upgrade has had a large part of his or her "prior experience" eroded away, and then expected to be able to step up in a few short weeks to be successful at the course.
Add to this the already mentioned simulator structure where we all know what's coming our way all results in an unfortunately high failure rate..

JY

[Flying Clog]

With the increasing number of zero experience seat warmers gracing the right seat these days, Cathay's safety record won't last.

It will eventually turn into a single pilot operation, a la Dragonair. And safety will suffer dramatically.

But it's ok, by then the management morons who implemented this little cost-cutting diamond will be long gone, on to their new posting.

:ok:

[wheels up]

It will eventually turn into a single pilot operation, a la Dragonair.

Except at Dragonair the 'seat warmers' fly lots of sectors and actually learn to fly the aircraft. At Cx on a 777 roster they're relief commanders after a year as an FO, and then it's back to 1 sector a month max.

Insanity.

[geh065]

Originally Posted by bridgeport View Post
Maybe this is why management sticks with the current formula. It produces the quality of captain's that they want.
Can anyone else confirm that the quality of CX captains is higher than those of airlines with a more 'lenient' checking process? Sounds like a bold statement.

CX consistantly ranks in the top 5-10 of the world's best operations as ranked by LOSA studies. Obviously captains are only one small part of this and can only take a small part of the credit but all the different parts of our ops fall together to give these good results.

[asianeagle]

CX consistantly ranks in the top 5-10 of the world's best operations as ranked by LOSA studies. Obviously captains are only one small part of this and can only take a small part of the credit but all the different parts of our ops fall together to give these good results.

and who does these audits???????

We do! :D:D

[jacobus]

No in fact we strictly don't. The Losa observers do just that. Observe and record. The results were collated by the LOSA collective and are now done by a private company. So you know not of what you speak.
Now, a different matter is what the company choose to do with the results.

[CXtreme]

Asian Eagle said it. Add the " never volunteer in the sim" culture as it's non jeopardy, until you make a mistake

Pass rates only look marginal beter because the Star Chamber Cat D so many. A procedure that you don't get to defend yourself at.

[White None]

Jeez Guys, think of some examples of Captains/Aviators you've admired, read about, flown with over the years, in Cathay or elsewhere, present or past and imagine explaining this whining thread to them. Man Up FFS.

[bridgeport]

I'm going to 'man up' by declining command.

[poydras]

A friend of mine once interviewed for an American carrier and at the end of the selection process the recruiter stated: we don't hire FO here, we hire future captains.

[Steve the Pirate]

we don't hire FO here, we hire future captains.

Was he hired? :E

STP

[Will fly for Cash]

It's a standard quote at many NA airline interviews. I'm not sure of the purpose. Is it supposed to be motivational? Threatening? I suppose at least it gives the HR pukes some kind of 'tagline' and employment justification.

[NoseGear]

I had the EXACT same line put to me at my CX interview.....by the then FCRM:D

[744drv]

... and now CX hire people assessed as being unsuitable for JFO upgrade ..... the mightier they are the greater the fall comes to mind!

[Arfur Dent]

CX has always said that line about "only employing potential Captains". Mind that was in the days when New Joiners had some ( lots ) of experience. How you can judge that a 21 year old straight out of College is a "potential Captain" beats me.

[bridgeport]

I can understand where they are coming from with their "we want potential captains" recruitment policy.

Aside from the practical issues of wanting people to move up the ranks, and fill the command slots, you also would not want jellyfish F/O's who are unable to assert themselves if faced with a captain about to make a mistake, or not up to par.

Personally, I wanted nothing more than to be a CX captain. And being a captain when I joined, I enjoyed the role.
But several years in CX has beat that out of me. Now I just want to salvage a decent roster, and keep my stress to a minimum.

[poydras]

to STP: Yes he got the job and he is a CN

To Will fly for cash: why it should be a threat? It is indicative that a company doesn't want seat warmers or uncommitted peoples, even from a CRM point of view. Otherwise will hire a bunch of Koreans…...

[spleener]

Bridgeport.

The system is way from perfect, but the fact is most people pass. Your comments come across, intended or otherwise, as only insecurities.

Look at it this way: if you put aside a couple/ few months of time and dedication to the task, you will in all probability find yourself pleasantly surprised and sporting 4 golden bars. If it doesn't work out? Well you can still enjoy an F/O roster with seniority and all of the benefits that entails :E..... Plus, you can complain on here with more validity - a total win/win really!

[broadband circuit]

but the fact is most people pass

Well, you've just confirmed you don't work for CX......

[bridgeport]

enjoy an F/O roster with seniority and all of the benefits that entails

That is 99% of the reason for not taking command. Even if I didn't have to do a command course.
If suddenly 4 bars turned up in my mailbox wrapped in a standard junior CN roster, I would just walk straight upstairs and hand them back.

I'm not going to endure 5 years of sh!t rosters, just for an extra 14%.... its that whole "work to live" principle.

[spleener]

Bridgeport; Thanks for enlightening me, I guess it's a lot fleet specific. Still sounds a bit "Oh Mom am I good enuf....." but I respect your call.

Broadband Circuit: Not correct. Move along.

[bridgeport]

I was a captain in my previous job, and there are, no doubt, some upsides to command. My salary doubled when I got command in my previous job, as well as a training system that trained.

But family and lifestyle come first.

"am I good enough". I think that reflecting on your own abilities and skills, is essential. Self doubt is a similar issue, and unfortunately we have a culture here that fosters it.

[Shep69]

In a properly working training system, failure rates of qualified individuals should be no higher than 10%. There might be some anomalies or spikes from time to time but a rate higher than this indicates a problem in either YOUR training system or YOUR screening system/selection process. And it wastes great sums of money and training resources.

High failure rates do NOT mean you are getting better qualified people out the other end, your standards are 'higher,' or your program is 'tougher' (whatever that means) or more challenging. It simply means you are finding silly reasons to fail more individuals, are not training them properly, and are wasting time and money--of both yourself and the individuals involved.

Check rides evaluate the instruction/instructor as much as the candidate (maybe more). There should be few if any items seen on a check that haven't been covered before in some detail, especially in the whats and the wheres to find it. The "here's the book/website link--figure it out" or "figure out what questions you should ask" approach isn't training nor is it really a big boy approach either.

Hiring someone as a potential Captain on the day of joining is fine, and very few who are hired are UNABLE to fulfill this role given time, training, and experience. If it's not happening, again you have a problem with YOUR process and work environment. Most pilots with advanced qualifications are professionals who are highly motivated, like what they do, and want to do a decent job. Simply getting to this point demands that the person CAN do the job. And again if it's not happening the organization needs to have a frank look in the mirror.

Many who entered this airline came from supervisory positions/captains in other airlines or as multi-ship flight leads and supervisors experienced in combat operations (with strong leadership and CRM skills albeit the person in the other seat might be several meters away and in another cockpit). So there's not alot to prove. If you have difficulty finding folks to upgrade (or turning down/deferring commands), again you need to look at YOUR process and find out why. If the system is working, everyone WANTS to suit up, show up, and be on the A team.

Many problems are caused by folks deliberately unwilling to listen (which is a sin of COMISSION, not omission). The labour negotiations should be a pretty good example of this mentality. If this isn't enough, a candid confidence/approval rating on a survey (which are usually exercises in feel-good ism) of less than 10% would be throwing a whole bunch of bright orange flags as well.

[clear to land]

For some trivia for you, the recent (last 12 months) Command Courses on the B777 at EK has a 92-94% pass rate. Seems to be relatively consistent-the odd aberration like any group-around 300 upgrades over that time frame.

[Arfur Dent]

I always look forward to reading your opinions Shep69. They are measured and considered. Your last post was spot on but, I fear will make no headway where it matters. How has this been allowed to continue for so long??:*

[Shep69]

Thank you, Arfur -- guess we'll see. At a previous place we made good headway in addressing attrition and training issues albeit over several years. But there's a lot of inertia here and I don't hold my breath for things to happen.

[Lowkoon]

Soon you will be able to do your upgrade on "learners world", it seems to be the weapon of choice when ever any pesky expensive training has to be done.

[Scoreboard]

Never had an easy command course...but must have done enough in the end surviving star chamber and managment check etc...many compatriots who I hold in very high regard didnt have their luck go their way on the day and had success at a later date....:(

With reflection there should be a failure rate....the 100% move right to left is bad. Since most will do the hard work but over the years you will slowly grow a pool of poor qualified captains who never did the work.

I agree though with Shep, the current system in cathay is just a poor reflection of cost cutting and some other issues but if you look at the majority of the failure rate of cathay command course, it isnt about skill or professionalism......its about the actual lack of cathay preparing its F/o for what the company expects from its future captains.

Some examples of guys failing are pretty easy to see coming. Example: expect to be "trained to be a captain"... Nope its a checking course your already meant to be the captain or trying as hard as you can be, even if it may bring you into confrontation with your Check Captain on a hard day. The stress nut who has worked himself up into a frenzy raging over every check hoop he is jumping thru...every negative comment will induce another foam mouth explosion(internally or externally) and followed by a poorer preformance under the course. Or the vol8 super keen hard working who is trying to have everything down rote, you just cant cover everything that happens and when C/t see this they start throwing you curve balls thick and fast.

And later your all in the bar bemoaning the failure rate when you ACTUALLY werent there to see THE WHY your mate failed I would reserve judgment upon CX training Dept. And no I am not in CX Training :)

[claraball]

The fact that there is no critique of the course requested or welcome from a command course failure is telling. They're not interested in changing or knowing what they're checkers are doing. Some things that I observed and experienced on my course were incredible and perhaps my obvious disbelief and dissatisfaction didn't help me but there are too many seat warmers with the title TC or STC who are only doing it for the 10% who have no ability or interest to teach. After a long time waiting they served a great disappointment that created a less enthusiastic employee unnecessarily. Luck is such a factor because of the incapable TCs and STCs. Not because of the routes or weather imho. With a descent trainer I could have been brought into line easily enough but they just couldn't do it. I taught flying before and I took great pride in seeing a students progress. I didn't see that from one TC or STC I had. They took pride in that it was a checking course rather than do their job. Second time will be different. It's a shame that change won't happen. There are good ones out there but I didn't get them is all. My recommendation to anyone on a course who is concerned about a trainer or a checker is to play any card you have to to make a change. It's your course. There are no rewards for grinning and bearing it. I speak from experience. Take your course by the balls and make it do what YOU want it to. Most all of you will pass. There is a high pass rate at the moment. It is a pain in the ass though. The fact that most guys get through the second time is evidence of a failed system. They aren't better pilots a year later. They're better trained at contemplating the broken system.

[positionalpor]

Unfortunately many courses outcomes are dictated by "emotional" feelings rather than strictly performance evaluation.

[claraball]

Right you are Posit. I was told to get the trainers onside. I replied I didn't know it was a popularity contest.

[bridgeport]

Out of curiosity, I always ask any TC/STC I fly with, what are the usual reasons for guys having trouble with command courses.

90% of the time, they say - task management, prioritization, complex MEL management, maintaining the sequence of the SOP's, and putting themselves under real or imagined time pressure. Mostly in the pre-takeoff phase.
All the things that are thrown out the window in 90% of the sim 'training' that we do.

[bridgeport]

"most guys get through the second time is evidence of a failed system. They aren't better pilots a year later. They're better trained at contemplating the broken system."

Excellent assessment of the system.

[OK4Wire]

From claraball:

My recommendation to anyone on a course who is concerned about a trainer or a checker is to play any card you have to to make a change. It's your course. There are no rewards for grinning and bearing it. I speak from experience.

Absolutely, 100% AGREE!

I made it through, but only just, and it would have been very different had I gone with my gut feeling and asked for a change. I thought I was "man- enough" to deal with his pettiness and insistance on non-SOP calls. I was wrong and it cost me some time and a lot of heart-ache. He has gone now, thankfully.

[Oasis]

Also, don't ask for a change of instructor. Find another way.
Second hand info, but it happens quite often that they just want you to 'deal with it' or 'be a grown up about it', if you want a change.
Same goes for a notorious checker for a QL or command check.
It's never worth it to risk it.

[Arfur Dent]

But if the guy's a p*ick and nobody tells him he's one - how's he ever going to find out??
Conversely, if everyone who is subjected to these guys who act like p*icks, asks for an Instructor change, somebody in charge is going to have to tell them not to be a p*rick!!:E:E

[Oasis]

Yea, that's all nice in theory.
They know about all the characters in question, but will often not do anything to better the situation.
Knowing this, you'd have to be silly to stick your head out, especially just before an upgrade.
I had high hopes things were getting better, after a certain checker was stripped of his qualification to bully others.

I wish the union had more of a role to play in this, as it is a source of stress for many.

[Arfur Dent]

Yes - quite agree. Such is the standard of our so-called Leaders that they feel as intimidated by the bullies as students on Command courses do. Everyone knew about the likes of MFL for years but little was ever done about him and as for the Zimbo idiot (who eventually screwed himself which was nice) - he was quite famous for his ridiculous and petty questions like "What figure is the megaphone volume set to?"
Everyone, of course knows it's 7. Argue if you dare!!!.....:yuk:

[bridgeport]

they feel as intimidated by the bullies as students on Command coursesExactly.

The tumbling dick-weeds cost the company hundreds of thousands in failed upgrades. Mostly due to their poor training skills, vindictiveness, pettiness, and general mental problems.... and nothing happens... its all good.

But a well-respected STC picks up a newspaper in front of an S/O, and suddenly its Nuremberg all over again.

[Basil]

I have, on a couple of occasions, been given to a different trainer.
The result, in both cases, was: "I don't understand the problem; he seems OK to me."

Sometimes it just is a personality thing. I remember a guy I flew with as his FO and was, years later, in another airline, checked by him as a captain myself. I didn't like him the first time and it hadn't changed the second time.
Why? I have no idea; couldn't put my finger on the reason. Just thought he was a weird cove.

[ByAirMail]

Some good posts like Shep69 claraball. Silberfuchs, There is a lot of Cat D done on the B747. Another reason for the high pass rate is the fact that it is direct entry F/O's, a position that required experienced applicants. Most freighter direct entry F/O's had previous commands, as some of them told me it was only their previous command training that helped them through.

My friend recently failed his command at EK, only because the wife walked out halfway through. EK is showing sympathy and assistance.

[VR-HFX]

Silber

That about says it all...without stating the bleeding obvious.

Problem is that we have run out of DESO's with real flying experience.

[Radix]

..........

[ByAirMail]

Silberfuchs, is this an exceptionally dynamic group upgrading in 2014 on the B747, or is it just a counsidence that most of the closed minded, CX old school Checkers, transferred to other fleets in 2013 /.early 2014..

[bridgeport]

Some ideas for a better check and training system.

1. All 3/4 bar checks have to be done with 2 checkers. Mr Hardass in the RHS, and a checker of your choice, on the jumpseat. So if Hardass wants to fail you to the fleet office, the other checker has some input and has to agree.

2. All star chamber decisions resulting in a failed command, or failed command assessment, have to be notarized, and presented in writing to the candidate. So that the reasons, and path to improvement, are clear.

3. No ERAS reports are valid until signed off by the candidate, as well as management. And any dispute about the results is handled in the same way as a D&G proceeding.

4. All of us start taking MP3 recorders in the the sim and debrief for all sessions. And if something turns up on your ERAS that is inaccurate to the extent that it might jeopardize a command upgrade, then some evidence is available for you to contest the result, as per idea 3 above.

Feedback anyone ?

[Steve the Pirate]

bridgeport, interesting suggestions. I do, however, have a few comments point by point:

1. Why not have an FO on the jumpseat for 3/4 bar checks? He's likely to be far more impartial surely and, if really necessary, side with an under-performing command candidate? Also, I would have thought it would be bad enough having one checker in the cockpit for a check - wouldn't two increase the pressure? Could it be that the candidate might say that the additional pressure affected his performance?

2. You're assuming that everyone reads company communications.

3. Firstly, what's ERAS? :) Secondly, I think there's a system in place for us to sign-off on our reports. What time frame do you have in mind for us to accept the report as factual? Also, see point 2 above.

4. Is it really that bad that you feel compelled to record a debriefing? Are people that insecure in their abilities and preparation for progression through the company? Is it really as bad as some here are making it out to be? In my personal experience, I've never had an instance where the written report didn't reflect my performance on the check or training event.

STP

[Oasis]

Dear Steve,

1, 2 I agree.
3. Yes, you have to click to acknowledge the eras report, or whatever they call it this week, but there is no way of providing feedback.
4. We record everything these days. Cvr, Qar, crew control calls, sim sessions.
Why not record your debrief? It is the only thing which may safeguard your career in case of a he-said, she-said situation.
Nothing to do with lack of confidence in your abilities.
I myself and a number of people I know have, at one time or another, been blind sighted and given a different eras report from the debrief.
Count yourself lucky, that you haven't had that problem...yet?

[The FUB]

What would you prefer

1. STC "Gents pass me your licenses, I've just got a couple of points".

2. Candidate 1 "Do you mind if I record the debrief ?" STC "Sure why not, and I will point out all the non standard SOPs you have, how your CRM and comms are sadly lacking and the debrief will last as long as the sim session."

Your choice.

[Radix]

..........

[VR-HFX]

All this talk about recording debriefs etc just shows how broken the system is. What happened to Kai Tak Rules? The C&T function is about career progression not about point scoring. Everyone who gets to command training has been in the "system" at least 10 years so a failure rate of over 5% is an indictment on the system.