upgrade failure rates / sacked while in trainig
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Pimper's paradise
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No matter what the reasons are for this, whenever such a situation exists the fault is with the organisation itself not with the people. The organisation makes all the decisions about it's people from day one, starting with the selection process all the way to command course selection. If CX pilots are acceptable for command qualification at only a 50% rate and others flying the same type equipment and operation have considerabley better then either the CX selection process failed to select the right people in the first place, the right people were selected but company failed to develope and train it's people so they're ready and acceptable for command when the time comes, or the initial selection was correct and developement was adequate but the command qualification process is at fault. But no matter what, the people were selected by the company in the first place and have passed all the hoops and hurdles the company asked of them up to that point, so if they've functioned in that environment up to that point then there shouldn't be such a large disconnect in the system and if there is then the system is broken.
Any good teacher knows that if a student is failing the very first place to look is the mirror (the teacher), and if there's any effort put forward in the order of 'career development' in this case without which any expectation or claim of an effecient system is a joke, then in this case that effort or system is failing. At my currnet airline we did have a similar situation with one of fleets' command upgrade rates which was close to 50% failure. To make a long story short all hell broke loose after a short while with the FAA coming down hard on the training department and instructor heads rolling, half of them were sent back to the line. And the problem was fixed in short order, with success rates now in the upper 90% range... with the same pilots and the same preformance standards.
Any airline where so many people openly suggest 'playing the game' as a method of qualifying has got some serious standardisation problems and cannot claim to have anything called 'Standard Operating Prodecures'. If SOPs exist at any airline it means that ANY check airman that EVER teaches or demands anything NON-STANDARD is sh!tcanned in short order, in an environment where company knowingly allows such check airmen to exist SOPs do not exist.
I personally know of five pilots who for this reason alone either turned down the second interview or said no when offered a class date with CX having passed all the selection process, but NONE of them told CX the real reason for this decision to avoid burning any bridges so I doubt CX knows how badly this particular reputation is affecting them in attracting people since no one in the right mind would tell them truthfully. Nearly every time I suggest to a friend to apply at CX this reputaion comes out immediately as a reason they're not willing to even apply. Wrongly or rightly this is CX's reputation out there along side all the positive reputations it has which are many to be fair, and as they say where there's smoke there's fire.
I for one would've never thought such an airline would have such a problem with something so basic, fundamental, proven and essential as standardisation. I would've thought CX would be a model of absolute standardisation, the absolute opposite of the 'playing the game' system.
Any good teacher knows that if a student is failing the very first place to look is the mirror (the teacher), and if there's any effort put forward in the order of 'career development' in this case without which any expectation or claim of an effecient system is a joke, then in this case that effort or system is failing. At my currnet airline we did have a similar situation with one of fleets' command upgrade rates which was close to 50% failure. To make a long story short all hell broke loose after a short while with the FAA coming down hard on the training department and instructor heads rolling, half of them were sent back to the line. And the problem was fixed in short order, with success rates now in the upper 90% range... with the same pilots and the same preformance standards.
Any airline where so many people openly suggest 'playing the game' as a method of qualifying has got some serious standardisation problems and cannot claim to have anything called 'Standard Operating Prodecures'. If SOPs exist at any airline it means that ANY check airman that EVER teaches or demands anything NON-STANDARD is sh!tcanned in short order, in an environment where company knowingly allows such check airmen to exist SOPs do not exist.
I personally know of five pilots who for this reason alone either turned down the second interview or said no when offered a class date with CX having passed all the selection process, but NONE of them told CX the real reason for this decision to avoid burning any bridges so I doubt CX knows how badly this particular reputation is affecting them in attracting people since no one in the right mind would tell them truthfully. Nearly every time I suggest to a friend to apply at CX this reputaion comes out immediately as a reason they're not willing to even apply. Wrongly or rightly this is CX's reputation out there along side all the positive reputations it has which are many to be fair, and as they say where there's smoke there's fire.
I for one would've never thought such an airline would have such a problem with something so basic, fundamental, proven and essential as standardisation. I would've thought CX would be a model of absolute standardisation, the absolute opposite of the 'playing the game' system.
Last edited by HeavyWrenchFlyer; 26th Nov 2006 at 06:59.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CX Standardisation
Heavy wrench there is NOT a major problem with standardisation at Cathay.
Believe it or not the trainers / checkers and flight operations management are out to get the people through. We do ask ourselves if we teach and get the message across. The company is also looking hard at its courses and career development structure. It IS making changes!
Unfortunately there is a vocal minority who pontificate about things mostly with second or third hand knowledge and we will never be able to convince them otherwise.
The Command course pass rate is now averaging 70% and it is only that low because of the very bad "blip" in the first three months of the year, which is dragging the percentage down. You also cannot use the argument that everyone must pass the Command Course just because that that is how it happens in the US or wherever. Yes the system may be have been partially at fault (different experience levels / backgrounds than what had been the "usual" Cathay Candidate - and that is NOT trying to say the people subsequently hired are not as good as before), but that has now been addressed. The build up to the course is different and the course itself has been modified. The company does not want to waste money!
It is unfortunate your friends have turned down Cathay due to "perceptions", if that was the real reason, as the only way to really know is join.
Going back to the beginning of the year and the high fail rate, most of that could be laid at the company door using your arguments. In other words perhaps the recruitment was not ideal, perhaps they should not have been given a "go", perhaps their development had not been thorough enough. Perhaps the candidate preparation although good did not concentrate on the "correct" areas and counter to your argument sometimes it is just the candidate. People DO make mistakes, it is how many, how often and more importantly how are they corrected - dealt with!! If the rest of the flight falls apart then error recovery is NOT good.
The "star chamber" has to take all these things into consideration and they have a huge responsibility not just to the candidate but to the travelling public. Cathay operates worldwide and in many "hostile" environments where TEM is vitally important.
Life is hard and sometimes you have to take the knocks, anyone who has had any time in aviation realises that. Nothing is a given and if people want an easy tick the box career, then they picked the wrong one with aviation.
Believe it or not the trainers / checkers and flight operations management are out to get the people through. We do ask ourselves if we teach and get the message across. The company is also looking hard at its courses and career development structure. It IS making changes!
Unfortunately there is a vocal minority who pontificate about things mostly with second or third hand knowledge and we will never be able to convince them otherwise.
The Command course pass rate is now averaging 70% and it is only that low because of the very bad "blip" in the first three months of the year, which is dragging the percentage down. You also cannot use the argument that everyone must pass the Command Course just because that that is how it happens in the US or wherever. Yes the system may be have been partially at fault (different experience levels / backgrounds than what had been the "usual" Cathay Candidate - and that is NOT trying to say the people subsequently hired are not as good as before), but that has now been addressed. The build up to the course is different and the course itself has been modified. The company does not want to waste money!
It is unfortunate your friends have turned down Cathay due to "perceptions", if that was the real reason, as the only way to really know is join.
Going back to the beginning of the year and the high fail rate, most of that could be laid at the company door using your arguments. In other words perhaps the recruitment was not ideal, perhaps they should not have been given a "go", perhaps their development had not been thorough enough. Perhaps the candidate preparation although good did not concentrate on the "correct" areas and counter to your argument sometimes it is just the candidate. People DO make mistakes, it is how many, how often and more importantly how are they corrected - dealt with!! If the rest of the flight falls apart then error recovery is NOT good.
The "star chamber" has to take all these things into consideration and they have a huge responsibility not just to the candidate but to the travelling public. Cathay operates worldwide and in many "hostile" environments where TEM is vitally important.
Life is hard and sometimes you have to take the knocks, anyone who has had any time in aviation realises that. Nothing is a given and if people want an easy tick the box career, then they picked the wrong one with aviation.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Pimper's paradise
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Electricjetjock, firstly thanks for the thoughtful response, I completely agree with all of what you said. Furthermore let me say that I'm extremely anal about following SOPs and I'm often having to say "We're not flipping burgers here, we're flying planes... we either do it right or don't do it at all". So if an airline is very particular about how they want things done their way I see it as a positive not a negative and I wouldn't have it any other way... as long as it's the same way every time and in writing. Also no problem with the additional standard of command selection criteria in addition to command course passing, some people can pass the training and qualify but have no business being airline Captains (I fly with some from time to time we all know some of those) so an effective mechanism to weed those out is a good thing as long as it's truely effective and not purpose defeating.
However regarding the level of CX's enforcement/commitment to SOP compliance in particular, is what has been clearly said here true about non-standard check airmen and Captains having the power to make non-reversible negative remarks in permanent files of those who insist on doing things the way CX's standards have spelled out in writing in various CX manuals???
Does CX back the side of the conflict that is demanding the SOPs or does CX back the higher rank regardless of who's right, more importantly does CX allow such non-standard Ca or check airman to contine operating in such manner??? Because if they allow it then it's easy to see how the student being told to do it one way by one instructor in the sim and critisized by another IOE instructor in the aircraft and told to do it some other way (lack of standardisation) can cause a disconnect in the training/qualification system the way so many seem to describe here resulting in negative check marks and low pass rates due to no fault of the student.
Because I'm here to tell you that if CX even allows rank to trump SOPs and has a culture in which those who have a habit of "my way or the highway" do not get severely punished and instead others who challenge them are punished by being black listed permanently, then CX cannot in any way claim to respect SOPs or CRM in any way. The only way to stem out these problems is to literally sh!tcan those who don't comply with SOPs regardless of rank and back those who do insist on complying.
Old world aviation culture was directly responsible for it's horrible saftey record until CRM and SOP compliance were enforced (and mostly not done volunteraly by the airlines), mainly the days of 'Captain is god' were brought to an end after many high profile crashes resulted from the rest of the crew fearing to challenge the Captain when he was mistaken. This challenging is now encouraged and in fact demanded of the crew. This new world aviation environment cannot exist if the company does not back the crew against the Captain who wants to be a dictator and non-standard at the same time.
Regarding what I said above, which does CX do??? Back SOPs or back rank??? And if not, is the culture changing for the better???
However regarding the level of CX's enforcement/commitment to SOP compliance in particular, is what has been clearly said here true about non-standard check airmen and Captains having the power to make non-reversible negative remarks in permanent files of those who insist on doing things the way CX's standards have spelled out in writing in various CX manuals???
Does CX back the side of the conflict that is demanding the SOPs or does CX back the higher rank regardless of who's right, more importantly does CX allow such non-standard Ca or check airman to contine operating in such manner??? Because if they allow it then it's easy to see how the student being told to do it one way by one instructor in the sim and critisized by another IOE instructor in the aircraft and told to do it some other way (lack of standardisation) can cause a disconnect in the training/qualification system the way so many seem to describe here resulting in negative check marks and low pass rates due to no fault of the student.
Because I'm here to tell you that if CX even allows rank to trump SOPs and has a culture in which those who have a habit of "my way or the highway" do not get severely punished and instead others who challenge them are punished by being black listed permanently, then CX cannot in any way claim to respect SOPs or CRM in any way. The only way to stem out these problems is to literally sh!tcan those who don't comply with SOPs regardless of rank and back those who do insist on complying.
Old world aviation culture was directly responsible for it's horrible saftey record until CRM and SOP compliance were enforced (and mostly not done volunteraly by the airlines), mainly the days of 'Captain is god' were brought to an end after many high profile crashes resulted from the rest of the crew fearing to challenge the Captain when he was mistaken. This challenging is now encouraged and in fact demanded of the crew. This new world aviation environment cannot exist if the company does not back the crew against the Captain who wants to be a dictator and non-standard at the same time.
Regarding what I said above, which does CX do??? Back SOPs or back rank??? And if not, is the culture changing for the better???
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In no other place on earth does it take so long to check people out. Why is that? 4 Weeks on the 727, 4 weeks on the DC-10, 747-200, G-550, but 6 months at CX on the 744. Is the training that good or that bad? i'd have to go with that bad, I'm afraid.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: HKG
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silberfuchs,
Very thoughtful and informative post. I'm sure this topic has been discussed at great length throughout all levels of the company from new joiner, to upgrade trainee right up through the training system and higher. Each with their own opinions and views on the situation.
Effective training, indeed, is very hard work. Anyone who makes it through the long road from SO to Capt, has obviously had significant exposure to the training system and many, many of the individuals that are part of it. In addition to this I was an FO during a period of high training and therefore exposed to more than my fair share of SP duties. Although fairly monotonous, I found it facinating to observe so many different styles and techniques of various check and trainers. Just like in most things, you see the whole spectrum, from very good, to very poor. Some guys are excellent at assessing the candidates capability to absorb information, and training appropriately, and in a positive atmosphere that is condusive to learning. Others are not very good at this and sometimes it is clearly obvious from a fly on the wall perspective that the trainee is getting nothing out of the experience what-so-ever. And as a personal observation, seniority, and check and training experience are not related to the quality of the check and trainer. However I have to say that in general most are very, very good at what is indeed a very demanding and challenging task.
I agree that third hand rumors should not be the basis of a contsructive discussion, and that there are always 2 sides or more, to a story. With regards to command course success, all a guy wants is a fair shot at it. In some cases I don't believe this happens due to a very few individuals that for whatever reason are incompetent in their position. This is a shame, a waste of resources, and a waste of money.
Very thoughtful and informative post. I'm sure this topic has been discussed at great length throughout all levels of the company from new joiner, to upgrade trainee right up through the training system and higher. Each with their own opinions and views on the situation.
Effective training, indeed, is very hard work. Anyone who makes it through the long road from SO to Capt, has obviously had significant exposure to the training system and many, many of the individuals that are part of it. In addition to this I was an FO during a period of high training and therefore exposed to more than my fair share of SP duties. Although fairly monotonous, I found it facinating to observe so many different styles and techniques of various check and trainers. Just like in most things, you see the whole spectrum, from very good, to very poor. Some guys are excellent at assessing the candidates capability to absorb information, and training appropriately, and in a positive atmosphere that is condusive to learning. Others are not very good at this and sometimes it is clearly obvious from a fly on the wall perspective that the trainee is getting nothing out of the experience what-so-ever. And as a personal observation, seniority, and check and training experience are not related to the quality of the check and trainer. However I have to say that in general most are very, very good at what is indeed a very demanding and challenging task.
I agree that third hand rumors should not be the basis of a contsructive discussion, and that there are always 2 sides or more, to a story. With regards to command course success, all a guy wants is a fair shot at it. In some cases I don't believe this happens due to a very few individuals that for whatever reason are incompetent in their position. This is a shame, a waste of resources, and a waste of money.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Command Pass Rate Airbus
Thought you might like to know that the command pass rate on the Airbus Fleet over the past six months has exceeded 85%. Can't agree with any of the comments regarding poor SOP's.They are much stronger than 10years ago, decluttered and to the point. Would agree that they trend towards the conservative side. Knee jerk reaction to the perception of lack of experience. Cheers.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not even up to bat
That is certainly good news. However you must be careful with stats. The latest group of command candidates was made up mostly of second attempters. The second go does seem to have a better pass rate. I guess it is because you put your time in on what was probably a new fleet, and that allows the big picture stuff room to fall in place.
However there is still the issue of the arbitrary Cat B'ing that prevents people from even getting a course. As a function of the system this must also be counted when looking at failure rates. ie a 8-10 year FO who is not good enough to be CAT A'd is a failure of the system not of that particular FO. You could disagree but the numbers of FOs Cat'bd is out of statistical averages for the industry.
Awaiting more good news.
FG
However there is still the issue of the arbitrary Cat B'ing that prevents people from even getting a course. As a function of the system this must also be counted when looking at failure rates. ie a 8-10 year FO who is not good enough to be CAT A'd is a failure of the system not of that particular FO. You could disagree but the numbers of FOs Cat'bd is out of statistical averages for the industry.
Awaiting more good news.
FG
Last edited by Five Green; 11th Dec 2006 at 10:39. Reason: spillin
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Command Pass Rate Airbus
Five Green to my knowledge since July the majority of command candidates on the airbus joined the company in mid to late 96 through to the middle of 97. I could be wrong but my information suggests that only 3 were on their second attempt. I do agree that you must be wary of statistics but I would argue that it seems a fairly good pass rate that is certainly within industry standards. Flight Ops are well aware of the issues that have been raised and highlighted within this forum and have made positive steps to address the issues. All systems have their downside and the responsibility of correction not only falls to management but the individuals at the coal face doing the training. I for one beleive that the intent amongst trainers is to do just that. Not perfect, I agree, and subjective analysis on the flight deck is always open to interpretation. As a job I thouroughly enjoy going to work and flying the line and look forward with cautious optimism that the mechanisms for continued improvement of pass rates have been put in place. The F/O's coming through the system at the moment are of a high standard and a pleasure to work with. Regards Three Bear.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suggestion
Wonderful ! Now as my suggestion for the day can this forward thinking management team restructure some more ? For example how about preventing ( or stopping ) the practice of giving a checker a specific candidates' Line Check or sim. There is nothing to be gained from Check and Trainers targeting specific individuals. That is unless the forward thinking management actually wants said candidate targeted.
After all we are now stuck with some of the less forward thinking check and trainers for another DECADE !!
FG
After all we are now stuck with some of the less forward thinking check and trainers for another DECADE !!
FG
I don't fly for an airline, but I have a question to those of you who are 'struggling' to make their upgrade so to speak. Are you going waaaaayy back through your training reports and reading about what defiencies were highlited before you even finished your type endorsement?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Straight outta Compton
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just wondering what the failure rate is for new-joiner DESO's and how much weight is carried by the training & checking in Adelaide and your initial type endorsement in HK?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Discovery Bay
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess when it is all said and done, it comes down to assessment of individuals against their peers. The best guys will suceed whereas the chaps that don't measure up get the short end of the stick.
These are fairly harsh words and a new and bitter experience for a younger generation, many of whom have been the victims of education systems that are prohibited from grading them due to perceived problems of self esteem etc.
However the demands of airline aviation are that on each flight the destiny of some 400 lives, $200 million of airframe and $1 billion of insurance payout are in the balance (and possibly the commercial survival of that airline). This sort of responsibility doesn't allow for automatic promotion of mummy's little boy who is used to been molly-coddled and spoonfed.
To survive in an aviation career, you need to take full responsibility for yourself. Any flight crew-member with a modicum of commonsense will devote their energy to finding out what is required for promotion and prepare and present themselves in the best light.
OTHR, any crew-member who goes around trying to find someone else or some other system deficiencies to blame for their own inadequacies to be upgraded, will be doomed to failure. No one respects a person with a lack of self-disciline, and more importantly, no one trusts such a person.
From the time you put your first foot in the door at CX as the most lowly S/O trainee, you are being assessed for Command (do not take these words lightly).
As I mentioned earlier, do yourself a favour and make a decision now to check out early, or do everyone else a favour and check out early.
If you let yourself or anyone else screw up your progress to Command, it's your fault, period.
These are fairly harsh words and a new and bitter experience for a younger generation, many of whom have been the victims of education systems that are prohibited from grading them due to perceived problems of self esteem etc.
However the demands of airline aviation are that on each flight the destiny of some 400 lives, $200 million of airframe and $1 billion of insurance payout are in the balance (and possibly the commercial survival of that airline). This sort of responsibility doesn't allow for automatic promotion of mummy's little boy who is used to been molly-coddled and spoonfed.
To survive in an aviation career, you need to take full responsibility for yourself. Any flight crew-member with a modicum of commonsense will devote their energy to finding out what is required for promotion and prepare and present themselves in the best light.
OTHR, any crew-member who goes around trying to find someone else or some other system deficiencies to blame for their own inadequacies to be upgraded, will be doomed to failure. No one respects a person with a lack of self-disciline, and more importantly, no one trusts such a person.
From the time you put your first foot in the door at CX as the most lowly S/O trainee, you are being assessed for Command (do not take these words lightly).
As I mentioned earlier, do yourself a favour and make a decision now to check out early, or do everyone else a favour and check out early.
If you let yourself or anyone else screw up your progress to Command, it's your fault, period.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sweden
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Studi
Have been and still am considering CX but have become somewhat worried about all these rumours.
On the other hand I have met people who has complained a lot about the very same instructors I have had and which I found very professional, straight forward and easy to work with so I suppose the truth is somewhere in between.
Have been and still am considering CX but have become somewhat worried about all these rumours.
On the other hand I have met people who has complained a lot about the very same instructors I have had and which I found very professional, straight forward and easy to work with so I suppose the truth is somewhere in between.