All Checking now!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
System or Individual
One of the problems that has always plagued our illustrious CandT dept. is the lack of control over the individual trainers. The bulk of whom, are amazing pilots who are more than capable of passing on their invaluable experience. It is the minority that account for the negative image and moral associated with our Check and Training departments.
Sadly, there are those (Line pilots and management all know who they are) that are just plain destructive. As the airline grows and along with it the training department, the willingness to keep individuals who clearly are not doing the job must end. If your check and training record stands out from the bell curve you should be looked into. Just as all line pilots whose training stands out should be given more attention.
The only reason anyone has ever given for keeping destructive check and trainers around is the outdated concept that they are hard to replace. Bullocks. Replace them and get the respect back that the check and training department deserves. Drop the old boy network. In a company where everybody's performance is continually weighed and measured, how these individuals can continue costing the company money, and negatively impacting careers as they do, is inexplicable.
Oh, and while you are at it, improve the communication between your check and trainers and the training department. Have the standards guys ride on more checks, especially of those that have a higher "failure" rate. As time goes on there are individuals whose ideas drift, they are then checking to their own standards without the knowledge of the training department, and no way for the training department to keep them in check. (pun intended).
If FOP management wants a few bulldogs around to use training as a discipline tool then we will NEVER have a respected, modern, efficient training department that actually improves the skills of line pilots.
I for one, will be watching the upcoming merge of "senior" and "flexible" fleets to see who comes out on top !! Can you tell who I am rooting for ??
Safety first !!
Peace out.
Sadly, there are those (Line pilots and management all know who they are) that are just plain destructive. As the airline grows and along with it the training department, the willingness to keep individuals who clearly are not doing the job must end. If your check and training record stands out from the bell curve you should be looked into. Just as all line pilots whose training stands out should be given more attention.
The only reason anyone has ever given for keeping destructive check and trainers around is the outdated concept that they are hard to replace. Bullocks. Replace them and get the respect back that the check and training department deserves. Drop the old boy network. In a company where everybody's performance is continually weighed and measured, how these individuals can continue costing the company money, and negatively impacting careers as they do, is inexplicable.
Oh, and while you are at it, improve the communication between your check and trainers and the training department. Have the standards guys ride on more checks, especially of those that have a higher "failure" rate. As time goes on there are individuals whose ideas drift, they are then checking to their own standards without the knowledge of the training department, and no way for the training department to keep them in check. (pun intended).
If FOP management wants a few bulldogs around to use training as a discipline tool then we will NEVER have a respected, modern, efficient training department that actually improves the skills of line pilots.
I for one, will be watching the upcoming merge of "senior" and "flexible" fleets to see who comes out on top !! Can you tell who I am rooting for ??
Safety first !!
Peace out.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: England
Age: 63
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As with more progressive airlines, the first sim each year should be the PC (and the PC should be conducted only once per year).
This should be the basic level of competence that we should be able to achieve 365 x 24/7 - we owe this to our customers. We may need some extra practice to achieve this - due to lack of sectors and the fact that ac are very reliable - and perhaps the tests should always be conducted on how we would fly the ac if things started to go wrong i.e using the automatics. Any report generated from the PC should merely state "pass" (if it was passed to the required standard - with or without repeats) or "refresher training required" (if outside the standard). There should be no numerical grading - it is too subjective and achieves nothing.
For those that required refresher training and a retest, then that should be provided. The other 3 simulator details per year should concentrate on manual flying refresher training (which we all need), the other required Schedule11 items (e.g.rapid depressurization), and LOFT exercises to extend our professional expertise. These reports should simply say "completed" or "not completed" but could provide an opportunity for the instructor to comment positively on a good performance.
De-personalized data could be retained to identify areas that might need more emphasis in refresher training.
Unfortunately I suspect that management at the higher levels is unlikely to move in this direction.
This should be the basic level of competence that we should be able to achieve 365 x 24/7 - we owe this to our customers. We may need some extra practice to achieve this - due to lack of sectors and the fact that ac are very reliable - and perhaps the tests should always be conducted on how we would fly the ac if things started to go wrong i.e using the automatics. Any report generated from the PC should merely state "pass" (if it was passed to the required standard - with or without repeats) or "refresher training required" (if outside the standard). There should be no numerical grading - it is too subjective and achieves nothing.
For those that required refresher training and a retest, then that should be provided. The other 3 simulator details per year should concentrate on manual flying refresher training (which we all need), the other required Schedule11 items (e.g.rapid depressurization), and LOFT exercises to extend our professional expertise. These reports should simply say "completed" or "not completed" but could provide an opportunity for the instructor to comment positively on a good performance.
De-personalized data could be retained to identify areas that might need more emphasis in refresher training.
Unfortunately I suspect that management at the higher levels is unlikely to move in this direction.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Upstairs
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Steve, thank you very much for stating the obvious! Those are the basics I was suggesting we should stick to. Whatever is done, it has to be consistent across the board. A lot less subjectivity and a lot more objectivity. They seem unable to acheive any level of consistency throughout the training or checking system. As the yanks say, It's like a box of chocolates... you never know what you're going to get! Too many personal preferrences are thaught as absolutes and too many wild ideas among those preferrences to make matters worse. Simlify, make consistant, put it in writing.
And for ****'s sake if you're going to continue to have this writeup system and in fact expand it, provide a serious essay writing class for these chaps so when it all comes out in public during a lawsuit (sooner or later), it's not so embarressing to read the 3rd grade level writing some of these chaps muster!
And for ****'s sake if you're going to continue to have this writeup system and in fact expand it, provide a serious essay writing class for these chaps so when it all comes out in public during a lawsuit (sooner or later), it's not so embarressing to read the 3rd grade level writing some of these chaps muster!
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Metal
Sorry I get it now - how naive of me! I'm embarresed as it's one of my personal preferrences to see through ironny. I'd better go on an essay writing course so that I can distinguish ironny more consistantly. Finally thanks for highlighting the inadequacies of my post and not pointing out anything obvious in yours. You are a scholer.
STP
Sorry I get it now - how naive of me! I'm embarresed as it's one of my personal preferrences to see through ironny. I'd better go on an essay writing course so that I can distinguish ironny more consistantly. Finally thanks for highlighting the inadequacies of my post and not pointing out anything obvious in yours. You are a scholer.
STP
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: HK
Age: 45
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all Training is training and it should not be used as a personal agenda of some trainers to look good themselves.
If one gets employed by an airline one should be more than knowledgeable on the simple aerodynamic and other basic stuff. A lot of it is training bluff and nothing else. A very good standard can only be achieved by good attitude from all.
Training is the the core of the company's safety. Training with the wrong attitude is not only bad in itself but also causes a safety issue. It is just a question of who is on the right side.
If one gets employed by an airline one should be more than knowledgeable on the simple aerodynamic and other basic stuff. A lot of it is training bluff and nothing else. A very good standard can only be achieved by good attitude from all.
Training is the the core of the company's safety. Training with the wrong attitude is not only bad in itself but also causes a safety issue. It is just a question of who is on the right side.
