upgrade failure rates / sacked while in trainig
Join Date: May 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FCUX,
of course I take it with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, such statements seem to fit into CX's self-perception in the training department.
If its just a propaganda trick, it still is a statement about which characters are sought by CX for their cockpits.
No pun intended, just really surprised from what I read in this topic.
studi
of course I take it with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, such statements seem to fit into CX's self-perception in the training department.
If its just a propaganda trick, it still is a statement about which characters are sought by CX for their cockpits.
No pun intended, just really surprised from what I read in this topic.
studi
Argue all you like, but the fact remains that the culture here is very different. If you argue this, you haven't seen much in your career.
Don't get me wrong, pilots complain the world over. They just don't have to look over their shoulder elsewhere.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Broken Record
Flex:
I have found you postings on other issues to be well balanced and intelligent. Why then do you show such a callous disregard for your fellow crew members and those aspiring to be captain ?
I would suggest that this is not at all an open minded view. Something that you promote on other threads but are sadly lacking here.
As I have said before this is precisely why you need to make sure that you are at the forefront of not only aviation technology and equipment, but also at the forefront of educational and human factors thinking. It is pure arogance to think that there have not been some improvements in training since your Aus air force days. Might I remind you that the system being applied to current command candidates is far different than when you checked out in the left seat. Command assessment interviews, massive write ups fo RTs, etc. etc. Also the system is currently wired for failure. Check captains can extend their's and senior mate's careers by ensuring that enough Captain candidates fail.
Again from a usually balanced view you turn and denigrate your fellow pilots. Why ? Nobody expects an automatic promotion. What we do want and sorely need in this airline is a balanced playing field. One where hard work and skill is rewarded not where the luck of who you draw as a checker determines your fate.
I have found you postings on other issues to be well balanced and intelligent. Why then do you show such a callous disregard for your fellow crew members and those aspiring to be captain ?
Again from a usually balanced view you turn and denigrate your fellow pilots. Why ? Nobody expects an automatic promotion. What we do want and sorely need in this airline is a balanced playing field. One where hard work and skill is rewarded not where the luck of who you draw as a checker determines your fate.
Why then do you show such a callous disregard for your fellow crew members and those aspiring to be captain ?
What I was trying address was what I thought was an element from some Posters of "Poor me, I've been here ten years and therefore I deserve to be upgraded to Captain".
If this doesn't apply to your case (and I strongly suspect that it doesn't), then please disregard my comments on the issue.
Nobody expects an automatic promotion. What we do want and sorely need in this airline is a balanced playing field. One where hard work and skill is rewarded not where the luck of who you draw as a checker determines your fate.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flex,
why do you think safe and respected airlines all over the world manage to promote most of their f/o 's sooner or later and don't crash either ?
why do you think safe and respected airlines all over the world manage to promote most of their f/o 's sooner or later and don't crash either ?
Last edited by sisyphos; 27th Dec 2006 at 05:54.
why do you think safe and respected airlines all over the world manage to promote most of their f/o 's sooner or later and don't crash either ?
1. Statistics (luck of the draw)
2. Safety margins (eg aircraft and ATC systems)
3. CRM (such as intervention by other crew members)
The absolute and key element in every flight that you perform depends ultimately upon the abilities of the final decision maker which is the Flight Commander or Captain. For the most part, flights proceed according to plan and SOP. However, ocassionally special decisions need to be made by the Commander to keep everthing on an even keel. Quite often these Command decisions pass virtually unnoticed by the other crew members as they make their own decisions under the watchful and approving eye of the Captain.
The policy of CX is to ensure that they promote to Command only those whom they think will not have to rely on statisitics and outside help to achieve safe and efficient outcome on a regular basis.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Asia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flex, a bit simplistic don’t you think?
Perhaps the company is also suffering victims of educational systems (especially those of old) that were lacking anti-bullying programs or a culture of dialogue and open communications that would allow you to understand and share what company standards and values really could be about rather than wield the “check out early” stick at people who put in a sensible challenge to the system or who may even be underperforming.
What kind of leadership or character development is possible in this environment?
Again: What Five Green and some others on this forum advocate is surely a disciplined but also a coordinated and consistent system linking training and professional development, resulting in improved standards and career prospects. What they highlight is that the core business of the training department should be training rather than concentrate on dealing people short ends of sticks, that’s what recruitment does.
Studi, the problem does not lie in ridiculous command requirements or inadequate selection processes but the lacking developmental support for junior pilots. To say you are required to measure up to command assessment criteria and face scrutiny from day one as a Second Officer is a little absurd, I am sure even some of those big egos displayed on this forum needed to be nurtured and given the tools and due time to succeed in years long ago.
Perhaps the company is also suffering victims of educational systems (especially those of old) that were lacking anti-bullying programs or a culture of dialogue and open communications that would allow you to understand and share what company standards and values really could be about rather than wield the “check out early” stick at people who put in a sensible challenge to the system or who may even be underperforming.
What kind of leadership or character development is possible in this environment?
Again: What Five Green and some others on this forum advocate is surely a disciplined but also a coordinated and consistent system linking training and professional development, resulting in improved standards and career prospects. What they highlight is that the core business of the training department should be training rather than concentrate on dealing people short ends of sticks, that’s what recruitment does.
Studi, the problem does not lie in ridiculous command requirements or inadequate selection processes but the lacking developmental support for junior pilots. To say you are required to measure up to command assessment criteria and face scrutiny from day one as a Second Officer is a little absurd, I am sure even some of those big egos displayed on this forum needed to be nurtured and given the tools and due time to succeed in years long ago.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rose colored
By that I mean these are the exact reasons we have an enviable safety record. I am sure you know what I mean, reference last few years and exciting events which could have been more than exciting had the above three not played a part.
So I think that you have made my case once again. We are no better and no worse than other international airlines.
As for the buck stopping at the Captain. Mostly true and to be expected however even lofty CX commanders do need the help from their crew. I have seen it personally with what would have been serious concequences, and I am not the only one. This is not a slag on our captains because they are extremely competent and experienced but even so....
I also think that you are being a little arogant saying that other airlines get by on luck. Every airline faces problems unique to their operating arena and demographics.
FG
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The safety record of other airlines!?
Well I have a friend who it so happens has worked for CX, QF, EK and is now doing contract for Asiana. He spent 2 years at CX, almost 5 years in QF, 6 years in EK and has done almost a year on contract for Asiana. His take on all this....CX had/has the highest safety margins. The arrogance level at QF has the potential to take them to a major hull loss...they got a wake up call in BKK and another potential ditching in Perth and yet another engine pod scrape a couple of years back. My friend says EK isn't bad but it may be starting to slip as they are having trouble getting enough pilots so the standards will have to come down. Asiana....well it is obvious in the fact they have to get foreign captains! Enough said about them. And talk to the 49ers that flew with China Airlines...those stories will keep you awake at night!
So to answer the question about CX pass rate...I think this airline has a very high standard. I personally don't feel that I have to keep an eagle eye out on the FO when flying. My friend said he saw some pretty hairy stuff in QF by quite senior guys(admittedly he was with the geriatrics on the 400). It seems the CX culture is to ensure any single pilot can operate the whole mission. Other airlines seem to RELY on the fact that their are 2 or more pilots up there!
So maybe the question is, is the CX pass standard providing too high a safety margin given new aircraft technologies, ATC, TCAS, EGPWS etc. Maybe we are being overly cautious and testing to a paradigm of aviation difficulty that no longer exists? A simple analogy...BMW/Mercs have great safety in the case of a crash...but if you don't crash, a Hyundai or Daewoo will do just as well at a fraction of the cost! So to continue the analogy...maybe their are too many airbags in CX??????
Well I have a friend who it so happens has worked for CX, QF, EK and is now doing contract for Asiana. He spent 2 years at CX, almost 5 years in QF, 6 years in EK and has done almost a year on contract for Asiana. His take on all this....CX had/has the highest safety margins. The arrogance level at QF has the potential to take them to a major hull loss...they got a wake up call in BKK and another potential ditching in Perth and yet another engine pod scrape a couple of years back. My friend says EK isn't bad but it may be starting to slip as they are having trouble getting enough pilots so the standards will have to come down. Asiana....well it is obvious in the fact they have to get foreign captains! Enough said about them. And talk to the 49ers that flew with China Airlines...those stories will keep you awake at night!
So to answer the question about CX pass rate...I think this airline has a very high standard. I personally don't feel that I have to keep an eagle eye out on the FO when flying. My friend said he saw some pretty hairy stuff in QF by quite senior guys(admittedly he was with the geriatrics on the 400). It seems the CX culture is to ensure any single pilot can operate the whole mission. Other airlines seem to RELY on the fact that their are 2 or more pilots up there!
So maybe the question is, is the CX pass standard providing too high a safety margin given new aircraft technologies, ATC, TCAS, EGPWS etc. Maybe we are being overly cautious and testing to a paradigm of aviation difficulty that no longer exists? A simple analogy...BMW/Mercs have great safety in the case of a crash...but if you don't crash, a Hyundai or Daewoo will do just as well at a fraction of the cost! So to continue the analogy...maybe their are too many airbags in CX??????
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: the land of chocolate
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think most pilots at cx a comfortable with the standards set.
It is not bad to have high standards, as long as they can be met by those involved, and they can with some work.
I think the problem is that those standards can vary between different checkers and it is very possible to get a bad report from one guy, whilst another would give you full marks, so you sometimes have to be a little "in the know" about some checkers likes and dislikes.
Another is politics, if a checker doesn't like your personality (or sometimes nationality) the checker has free reign, there is no way to challenge a report, or support if you talk to someone upstairs about it. (even if there is a history with this checker)
This means that the checking/training department has limited accountability, therefore it operates somewhat unchecked, which is unhealthy for any department in any company.
This has changed some of late and I think the higher passing rates reflect this.
I also think most of the trainers/checkers at this company are extremely competent at their job and are working hard to help you and are very happy to see you succeed.
The few bad ones, are not weeded out, or kept in check. These are the ones that could cost you your carreer (at least temporarily).
It is not bad to have high standards, as long as they can be met by those involved, and they can with some work.
I think the problem is that those standards can vary between different checkers and it is very possible to get a bad report from one guy, whilst another would give you full marks, so you sometimes have to be a little "in the know" about some checkers likes and dislikes.
Another is politics, if a checker doesn't like your personality (or sometimes nationality) the checker has free reign, there is no way to challenge a report, or support if you talk to someone upstairs about it. (even if there is a history with this checker)
This means that the checking/training department has limited accountability, therefore it operates somewhat unchecked, which is unhealthy for any department in any company.
This has changed some of late and I think the higher passing rates reflect this.
I also think most of the trainers/checkers at this company are extremely competent at their job and are working hard to help you and are very happy to see you succeed.
The few bad ones, are not weeded out, or kept in check. These are the ones that could cost you your carreer (at least temporarily).
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on !
Oasis:
Well said !
I agree, we here at brushstroke need some accountability in our checking department.
The trainees needs to be able to question what goes in the report. We need to stop the Checkers from being able to request a particular candidate's Line Check or sim. We as pilots also need to be able to go and request a checker not be assigned if the problem is severe enough and a one time deal. Colorful language and personal and political statements must not be allowed in training reports. These are just a few areas we can improve our standards !!
If what I am hearing about the latest resignations is even half true then I am not the only one who feels this way !!
Peace out
FG
Well said !
I agree, we here at brushstroke need some accountability in our checking department.
The trainees needs to be able to question what goes in the report. We need to stop the Checkers from being able to request a particular candidate's Line Check or sim. We as pilots also need to be able to go and request a checker not be assigned if the problem is severe enough and a one time deal. Colorful language and personal and political statements must not be allowed in training reports. These are just a few areas we can improve our standards !!
If what I am hearing about the latest resignations is even half true then I am not the only one who feels this way !!
Peace out
FG
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think most are comfortable with the typical standard set of CX but standards among checkers has been an issue.
CX needs to spend more time on standard setting within the check n training group. More meetings and discussion on what are the standards is needed instead of checkers having to interpret their own set of standards from the CX library. For instance...how many of us have seen techniques incorporated into standards by individual checkers?
I feel more group discussion on standards can reduce this variance among checkers.
CX needs to spend more time on standard setting within the check n training group. More meetings and discussion on what are the standards is needed instead of checkers having to interpret their own set of standards from the CX library. For instance...how many of us have seen techniques incorporated into standards by individual checkers?
I feel more group discussion on standards can reduce this variance among checkers.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SIENA TWO
Age: 54
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
would this be the resignations that are floating around CX about guys going to UPS/FDX?
Or are there more out there? I know quite a few S/Os personally that are bailing, some to good places, some not so good places, but if it meant getting out of CX they were happy!
In response to what was said by Oasis: you are correct. No one has a problem with high standards set for the cockpit. As pilots, we want to do a good job to the highest possible safety standards! That is not what is debated. It is only how the Checking department carry out their business has us staying up at night wondering if coming to Cathay was the right decision.
Happy New Year, and let's hope Iconnect gets back up soon. I miss my groupwise!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An excellent question. I think the answer might be:
1. Statistics (luck of the draw)
2. Safety margins (eg aircraft and ATC systems)
3. CRM (such as intervention by other crew members)
The absolute and key element in every flight that you perform depends ultimately upon the abilities of the final decision maker which is the Flight Commander or Captain. For the most part, flights proceed according to plan and SOP. However, ocassionally special decisions need to be made by the Commander to keep everthing on an even keel. Quite often these Command decisions pass virtually unnoticed by the other crew members as they make their own decisions under the watchful and approving eye of the Captain.
The policy of CX is to ensure that they promote to Command only those whom they think will not have to rely on statisitics and outside help to achieve safe and efficient outcome on a regular basis.
1. Statistics (luck of the draw)
2. Safety margins (eg aircraft and ATC systems)
3. CRM (such as intervention by other crew members)
The absolute and key element in every flight that you perform depends ultimately upon the abilities of the final decision maker which is the Flight Commander or Captain. For the most part, flights proceed according to plan and SOP. However, ocassionally special decisions need to be made by the Commander to keep everthing on an even keel. Quite often these Command decisions pass virtually unnoticed by the other crew members as they make their own decisions under the watchful and approving eye of the Captain.
The policy of CX is to ensure that they promote to Command only those whom they think will not have to rely on statisitics and outside help to achieve safe and efficient outcome on a regular basis.
When I did my first type rating (at a previous airline with a really good training department) one of the first things my sim instructor told me was "the only reason you are in that seat is because of seniority, not because of your ability". He told me this to make sure that it didn't go to my head that I was now in the left seat, and it worked. Just because you are sitting in the left seat does not mean you aren't gonna make any mistakes. You can't go on thinking that your ****t don't stink.
A good manager knows his resources and utilizes them appropriately. REAL major airlines have been teaching this for years, and here at CX we are still teaching that the Commander should take over flying as soon as something goes wrong. As a Captain during any sort of emergency, the last task I want to pile onto my already full plate is flying the airplane. That would be my first call out, "your airplane". Now I can concentrate on managing all my resources to reach a successful outcome.
Speaking of statistics, they are definetely on our side. You can't compare CX to airlines like AA, BA, or even any other major airline in the states. American Airlines has 4500 departures a day. That is what Cathay flies in a month. Every month at Cathay is a Day in the life of AA. One year at CX is less than 2 weeks at AA. So if AA has an accident once every 5 years, that is the equivalent of CX having an accident every 60 years. You get the point.
Flexible, you need to wake up and evolve with the industry or move over and let someone younger take your place. Sometimes I think that is the reason retirement age has been 60 for so long. You remind me of the guys who criticized GPS when it came out and said they would stick with their "trusty VORs and NDBs".
And I agree with the analogy, way too many airbags at Cathay. This airline needs to seriously look at its operations and apply the KISS concept to it. We are overloading our pilots with so much non-essential crap that they are missing the big stuff. Like ILS not aligned with the runway, or AP not engaged. Maybe if you didn't have to make so many worthless call outs on a missed approach someone in the cockpit would hear the AP disconnect horn. These incidents were warning signs, the fact that we had 3 of them without loosing any planes or lives means we are running out of close calls.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SIENA TWO
Age: 54
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Discovery Bay
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course, no one upstairs (particularly floor numero tres) at CX has any common sense. (common sense is not very common around here).
Same Team, Same Dream
That would be my first call out, "your airplane". Now I can concentrate on managing all my resources to reach a successful outcome.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus, your "surprised copilot" sounds like the incompetent one, if he can't handle flying the plane during an emegency he shouldn't be there. Sounds like you don't need him
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you as captain have to shove the responsibility of flying an emergency on to a surprised ccopilot then either you are gutless and should not be in the LH seat or you are incompetent - same result. You make the whole business of flying an aeroplane so complicated when it is not. "Managing resources" is just another example of weasel words.
Enough said.