Gunner....
Naah, our **** stinks, but we fly lots better than you. 😁

This thread is descending into a RAAF vs civilian yelling match, when it’s really got nothing to do with that at all.
The reality is that NJS has a failure rate of 70% for upgrades and a big culture issue. The rest of the group sits well below 10%.
The blame can only rest with the HOFO and Head of T and C period. My guess is once this has all been investigated said individuals will be off to ‘spend more time with family’ if previous history from the group is anything to go by.

From what I’ve been told, the agro surrounding the military influence in this case is a) it’s toxic and b) it’s seems to follow the ex-military guys around. If the rest of the RAAF are fine and dandy, good for them. The problem is the culture that is being discussed on this thread is terrible and it came from the military. Furthermore, the theory that the failure rate was established to make a case for more military guys, presumably of the same mindset, to be parachuted in, has most people concerned. Correct me if I’m wrong but the most officious ones only ever flew a 737 or a biz jet anyway, pretty much what hundreds of civvy guys do every day, maybe the superiority complex could go.

Just about everyone has a boss above them to whom they have to answer.
In the NJS corporate structure who's the manager responsible for the Flight Department?
Who's the manager who will be held partially responsible if there is an accident and an investigation determines the Flight Department was as problematic as posters on here describe.

Who's the manager who will try to claim he was "unaware of any concerns regards the Flight Department"?

Cheers.

Reads more like a group of people who can't let go of a elitist, small operation mentality. The RAAF choose a very small select number of applicants then go on and fail another percentage of those during initial training. This is the culture that these check captains are coming from. Which works in a small organisation with an unlimited budget. Transpose that to civilian world and you aren't getting the top 1% of applicants because you don't pay enough, and you can't afford just to fail everyone. So the mentality needs to change from being the "best" to being "safe". It sounds like these RAAF guys can't make that transition. If you want to be the "best" in the civilian world you will need to almost triple the salary on offer if that's the kind of check and training organisation you want to run.

Lots of uninformed commentary on here about RAAF culture. I kindly suggest those with no experience of the RAAF should stop maligning the organisation with comments based on little more than second-hand perceptions of a small number of individuals. There may well be a problem at NJS, but let's not forget there are plenty of pilots from the civil aviation world who got into airline management and subsequently made life very hard for others. Do we blame that on "culture"?

Neville said:
Contrary to popular perception, the RAAF does not have an "unlimited budget". It works within tight budget constraints and, like every other defence organisation, has to fight tooth and nail for any extra allocation within the overall defence budget. The amount that's allocated to pilot training takes historical course washout rates into account. Those who fail the course, generally do so because they haven't reached the standard required at the end of a phase of the course. They would normally receive some remedial training, but there isn't a lot of flex to extend people because the course graduation date is fixed in stone to prevent knock-on delays to training courses at the squadrons.

Small operation is an interesting way to think about the operator of the largest aircraft fleet in Australia :E

It’s not the RAAF itself that’s to blame. They can do whatever they want in that organisation. But it is that culture and mentality that is being brought into civilian airlines that is not appropriate, those who are not passing command training don’t need to be told they can’t fly from people who have less experience than they do.

Also not just “second hand rumours”, the union has written about the poor command training treatment.


They were talking about a “group of people”. At 700 pilots (according to this link) you wouldn’t even come close to being the largest pilot group in the country.

I must be stupid but I never understood this.

How can it be cheaper to train someone new from start than give someone additional training who is almost there?

Example, you might have completed 100 hours training, but they say they can't afford another 10 hours training yet they can afford to hire someone new to replace you and give them 100 hours to get your level ?

Doesn't this also have a greater knock on delay ?

You might only need an extra week, but the squadron cannot wait, so we will just terminate you and hire someone new and they can wait even longer now? (Wait another 12 months longer now)

Someone who is "almost there" would more than likely be given remedial training. Nevertheless, there's a limit to how much extra training can be offered within the time available before graduation. Furthermore, most of those who get terminated off course have already had remedial training and have failed a second test. Of course it's not cheaper to "train someone new from start", but they have to draw a line somewhere and make a decision about whether the student is likely to reach "the standard". If that decision is "no" based on the student's training history, they will more than likely be terminated.

The number of students on each course is determined by the demand for new pilots at the squadrons, and takes into account the historical failure rate. Some courses do better, some do worse. If more students graduate than expected, a few might need to wait a few months for their operational conversion course. If less graduate than expected, the affected squadrons might have to wait for the next course to graduate (about 4 months, depending on the number of courses held that year), or they might post a pilot in from somewhere else.

Is there any confirmation/verification the failure rate is actually 70%? I’ve heard it’s a lot less than that.

They’ll never, ever broadcast official confirmation of that figure (or any internal training details), that’s just embarrassing.

We know it is high enough for the union to express concern, it’s significant enough for a large number of F/Os to express discontent and it’s causing a lot of resignations.

You can say that it’s just a trolling effort on an anonymous forum, but over two threads I’ve counted 6 or 7 posters with apparent internal knowledge at NJS stating there’s a high command failure rate and/or perceived nepotism by ex RAAF pilots is the cause.

Where there’s smoke……

First Elephant in the room - Some people are simply not capable of being in the the LHS. Plain and simple. Doesn't matter how much training you throw at them.
Second Elephant in the room - Not all airlines have the same standards, and yes, they do vary from outfit to outfit.

I don't think it should be a "Right of passage" to the left hand seat. I have seen many an FO, who just plonked themselves in the right hand seat for donkeys years, with no effort or commitment to study or have a decision making model, or even try to make a decision, then expect to pass a command course.

Perhaps, but certainly not a huge percentage like has been told.

It’s not rocket science….

When you have experienced ex heavy captains from reputable airlines fail at NJS you know there is a bigger problem. The figures are correct maybe even a bit on the low side for the failure rate. I left NJS a few months ago so I speak from experience.

Are the Captain upgrades failing in the classroom, sim or the airplane?

My previous airline had an incredibly small failure rate for the upgrade checkride in the aircraft. This was due to people being found either not suitable in ground school or the upgrade sim.

If NJS is failing most of their upgrade candidates in the aircraft that's 99% the airlines fault.

I'm sorry but 70% just doesn't seem like a realistic number - I can't see any circumstance where a check and training group would be satisfied with that outcome, regardless of military, civlian or Space Shuttle backgrounds.

I also can't imagine the company being that tolerant of it either.

What are people actually failing for? Is it for things that you personally would be comfortable flying with? I dont have any answers, I'm just curious.

Many candidates fail at the interview stage. The interview is tailored to whether they like you or not and how much you suck up to POH. Those that get a chance for the aircraft training are being failed on the final sim prior to the line check. A very substantial number of pilots fail this part and that includes ex heavy captains and very capable and experienced individuals who have never had a problem on the line or for any cyclics.

This place sounds like Hell on Earth. Those standing by should be well reminded toxic training cultures can quite comfortably undermine an operator’s safety culture in insidious fashion. Many here would have witnessed this at other operations. I’m surprised ex-mil wouldn’t be well versed considering the hard lessons the RAAF learned through considerable loss of life a few decades ago in training accidents.

A simple test as to whether a training organisation is failing and leaning towards toxic, is the support, mentoring and re-training of a pilot not making the grade. If pre-evaluation of a candidate is perceived or exists, via gossip and cronyism, you don’t need the test. All is lost.

Wait until the mission specialists get their hands on the 220’s, it’ll be serious rocket science then . . . . . . or maybe they suddenly won’t be so clever transitioning to the Airbus at an age greater than when on pilots course.

The work environment and culture sounds dreadful with the Reason model commencing right there.