Check & trap! Are we back to the bad old days?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: A dozen towns ago
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check & trap! Are we back to the bad old days?
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?
Are they regressing to the bad old days of the late 90's?
Did they not learn anything from the 330 intro?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: fantasy island
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
This is probably being generated by the regulatory authority (not the Flight Department) and Qantas just have to comply.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,098
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Nunc est bibendum
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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!
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.
) the fault is with the system.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
holic - the only problem with
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.
They expected a significant percentage of students to require additional sims and they weren't too concerned about it if you did.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Anyway, what is your point?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.