Check and Training.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: N. Am.
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a standard quote at many NA airline interviews. I'm not sure of the purpose. Is it supposed to be motivational? Threatening? I suppose at least it gives the HR pukes some kind of 'tagline' and employment justification.
CX has always said that line about "only employing potential Captains". Mind that was in the days when New Joiners had some ( lots ) of experience. How you can judge that a 21 year old straight out of College is a "potential Captain" beats me.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Lots of Different Places
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can understand where they are coming from with their "we want potential captains" recruitment policy.
Aside from the practical issues of wanting people to move up the ranks, and fill the command slots, you also would not want jellyfish F/O's who are unable to assert themselves if faced with a captain about to make a mistake, or not up to par.
Personally, I wanted nothing more than to be a CX captain. And being a captain when I joined, I enjoyed the role.
But several years in CX has beat that out of me. Now I just want to salvage a decent roster, and keep my stress to a minimum.
Aside from the practical issues of wanting people to move up the ranks, and fill the command slots, you also would not want jellyfish F/O's who are unable to assert themselves if faced with a captain about to make a mistake, or not up to par.
Personally, I wanted nothing more than to be a CX captain. And being a captain when I joined, I enjoyed the role.
But several years in CX has beat that out of me. Now I just want to salvage a decent roster, and keep my stress to a minimum.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: cassiopea
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to STP: Yes he got the job and he is a CN
To Will fly for cash: why it should be a threat? It is indicative that a company doesn't want seat warmers or uncommitted peoples, even from a CRM point of view. Otherwise will hire a bunch of Koreans…...
To Will fly for cash: why it should be a threat? It is indicative that a company doesn't want seat warmers or uncommitted peoples, even from a CRM point of view. Otherwise will hire a bunch of Koreans…...
Bridgeport.
The system is way from perfect, but the fact is most people pass. Your comments come across, intended or otherwise, as only insecurities.
Look at it this way: if you put aside a couple/ few months of time and dedication to the task, you will in all probability find yourself pleasantly surprised and sporting 4 golden bars. If it doesn't work out? Well you can still enjoy an F/O roster with seniority and all of the benefits that entails
..... Plus, you can complain on here with more validity - a total win/win really!
The system is way from perfect, but the fact is most people pass. Your comments come across, intended or otherwise, as only insecurities.
Look at it this way: if you put aside a couple/ few months of time and dedication to the task, you will in all probability find yourself pleasantly surprised and sporting 4 golden bars. If it doesn't work out? Well you can still enjoy an F/O roster with seniority and all of the benefits that entails
..... Plus, you can complain on here with more validity - a total win/win really!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Lots of Different Places
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
enjoy an F/O roster with seniority and all of the benefits that entails
If suddenly 4 bars turned up in my mailbox wrapped in a standard junior CN roster, I would just walk straight upstairs and hand them back.
I'm not going to endure 5 years of sh!t rosters, just for an extra 14%.... its that whole "work to live" principle.
Bridgeport; Thanks for enlightening me, I guess it's a lot fleet specific. Still sounds a bit "Oh Mom am I good enuf....." but I respect your call.
Broadband Circuit: Not correct. Move along.
Broadband Circuit: Not correct. Move along.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Lots of Different Places
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was a captain in my previous job, and there are, no doubt, some upsides to command. My salary doubled when I got command in my previous job, as well as a training system that trained.
But family and lifestyle come first.
"am I good enough". I think that reflecting on your own abilities and skills, is essential. Self doubt is a similar issue, and unfortunately we have a culture here that fosters it.
But family and lifestyle come first.
"am I good enough". I think that reflecting on your own abilities and skills, is essential. Self doubt is a similar issue, and unfortunately we have a culture here that fosters it.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a properly working training system, failure rates of qualified individuals should be no higher than 10%. There might be some anomalies or spikes from time to time but a rate higher than this indicates a problem in either YOUR training system or YOUR screening system/selection process. And it wastes great sums of money and training resources.
High failure rates do NOT mean you are getting better qualified people out the other end, your standards are 'higher,' or your program is 'tougher' (whatever that means) or more challenging. It simply means you are finding silly reasons to fail more individuals, are not training them properly, and are wasting time and money--of both yourself and the individuals involved.
Check rides evaluate the instruction/instructor as much as the candidate (maybe more). There should be few if any items seen on a check that haven't been covered before in some detail, especially in the whats and the wheres to find it. The "here's the book/website link--figure it out" or "figure out what questions you should ask" approach isn't training nor is it really a big boy approach either.
Hiring someone as a potential Captain on the day of joining is fine, and very few who are hired are UNABLE to fulfill this role given time, training, and experience. If it's not happening, again you have a problem with YOUR process and work environment. Most pilots with advanced qualifications are professionals who are highly motivated, like what they do, and want to do a decent job. Simply getting to this point demands that the person CAN do the job. And again if it's not happening the organization needs to have a frank look in the mirror.
Many who entered this airline came from supervisory positions/captains in other airlines or as multi-ship flight leads and supervisors experienced in combat operations (with strong leadership and CRM skills albeit the person in the other seat might be several meters away and in another cockpit). So there's not alot to prove. If you have difficulty finding folks to upgrade (or turning down/deferring commands), again you need to look at YOUR process and find out why. If the system is working, everyone WANTS to suit up, show up, and be on the A team.
Many problems are caused by folks deliberately unwilling to listen (which is a sin of COMISSION, not omission). The labour negotiations should be a pretty good example of this mentality. If this isn't enough, a candid confidence/approval rating on a survey (which are usually exercises in feel-good ism) of less than 10% would be throwing a whole bunch of bright orange flags as well.
High failure rates do NOT mean you are getting better qualified people out the other end, your standards are 'higher,' or your program is 'tougher' (whatever that means) or more challenging. It simply means you are finding silly reasons to fail more individuals, are not training them properly, and are wasting time and money--of both yourself and the individuals involved.
Check rides evaluate the instruction/instructor as much as the candidate (maybe more). There should be few if any items seen on a check that haven't been covered before in some detail, especially in the whats and the wheres to find it. The "here's the book/website link--figure it out" or "figure out what questions you should ask" approach isn't training nor is it really a big boy approach either.
Hiring someone as a potential Captain on the day of joining is fine, and very few who are hired are UNABLE to fulfill this role given time, training, and experience. If it's not happening, again you have a problem with YOUR process and work environment. Most pilots with advanced qualifications are professionals who are highly motivated, like what they do, and want to do a decent job. Simply getting to this point demands that the person CAN do the job. And again if it's not happening the organization needs to have a frank look in the mirror.
Many who entered this airline came from supervisory positions/captains in other airlines or as multi-ship flight leads and supervisors experienced in combat operations (with strong leadership and CRM skills albeit the person in the other seat might be several meters away and in another cockpit). So there's not alot to prove. If you have difficulty finding folks to upgrade (or turning down/deferring commands), again you need to look at YOUR process and find out why. If the system is working, everyone WANTS to suit up, show up, and be on the A team.
Many problems are caused by folks deliberately unwilling to listen (which is a sin of COMISSION, not omission). The labour negotiations should be a pretty good example of this mentality. If this isn't enough, a candid confidence/approval rating on a survey (which are usually exercises in feel-good ism) of less than 10% would be throwing a whole bunch of bright orange flags as well.
Last edited by Shep69; 17th Dec 2014 at 13:25.
For some trivia for you, the recent (last 12 months) Command Courses on the B777 at EK has a 92-94% pass rate. Seems to be relatively consistent-the odd aberration like any group-around 300 upgrades over that time frame.
I always look forward to reading your opinions Shep69. They are measured and considered. Your last post was spot on but, I fear will make no headway where it matters. How has this been allowed to continue for so long??
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you, Arfur -- guess we'll see. At a previous place we made good headway in addressing attrition and training issues albeit over several years. But there's a lot of inertia here and I don't hold my breath for things to happen.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: HK- A little bit of industrial China in every breath you take.
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Soon you will be able to do your upgrade on "learners world", it seems to be the weapon of choice when ever any pesky expensive training has to be done.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never had an easy command course...but must have done enough in the end surviving star chamber and managment check etc...many compatriots who I hold in very high regard didnt have their luck go their way on the day and had success at a later date....
With reflection there should be a failure rate....the 100% move right to left is bad. Since most will do the hard work but over the years you will slowly grow a pool of poor qualified captains who never did the work.
I agree though with Shep, the current system in cathay is just a poor reflection of cost cutting and some other issues but if you look at the majority of the failure rate of cathay command course, it isnt about skill or professionalism......its about the actual lack of cathay preparing its F/o for what the company expects from its future captains.
Some examples of guys failing are pretty easy to see coming. Example: expect to be "trained to be a captain"... Nope its a checking course your already meant to be the captain or trying as hard as you can be, even if it may bring you into confrontation with your Check Captain on a hard day. The stress nut who has worked himself up into a frenzy raging over every check hoop he is jumping thru...every negative comment will induce another foam mouth explosion(internally or externally) and followed by a poorer preformance under the course. Or the vol8 super keen hard working who is trying to have everything down rote, you just cant cover everything that happens and when C/t see this they start throwing you curve balls thick and fast.
And later your all in the bar bemoaning the failure rate when you ACTUALLY werent there to see THE WHY your mate failed I would reserve judgment upon CX training Dept. And no I am not in CX Training
With reflection there should be a failure rate....the 100% move right to left is bad. Since most will do the hard work but over the years you will slowly grow a pool of poor qualified captains who never did the work.
I agree though with Shep, the current system in cathay is just a poor reflection of cost cutting and some other issues but if you look at the majority of the failure rate of cathay command course, it isnt about skill or professionalism......its about the actual lack of cathay preparing its F/o for what the company expects from its future captains.
Some examples of guys failing are pretty easy to see coming. Example: expect to be "trained to be a captain"... Nope its a checking course your already meant to be the captain or trying as hard as you can be, even if it may bring you into confrontation with your Check Captain on a hard day. The stress nut who has worked himself up into a frenzy raging over every check hoop he is jumping thru...every negative comment will induce another foam mouth explosion(internally or externally) and followed by a poorer preformance under the course. Or the vol8 super keen hard working who is trying to have everything down rote, you just cant cover everything that happens and when C/t see this they start throwing you curve balls thick and fast.
And later your all in the bar bemoaning the failure rate when you ACTUALLY werent there to see THE WHY your mate failed I would reserve judgment upon CX training Dept. And no I am not in CX Training
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that there is no critique of the course requested or welcome from a command course failure is telling. They're not interested in changing or knowing what they're checkers are doing. Some things that I observed and experienced on my course were incredible and perhaps my obvious disbelief and dissatisfaction didn't help me but there are too many seat warmers with the title TC or STC who are only doing it for the 10% who have no ability or interest to teach. After a long time waiting they served a great disappointment that created a less enthusiastic employee unnecessarily. Luck is such a factor because of the incapable TCs and STCs. Not because of the routes or weather imho. With a descent trainer I could have been brought into line easily enough but they just couldn't do it. I taught flying before and I took great pride in seeing a students progress. I didn't see that from one TC or STC I had. They took pride in that it was a checking course rather than do their job. Second time will be different. It's a shame that change won't happen. There are good ones out there but I didn't get them is all. My recommendation to anyone on a course who is concerned about a trainer or a checker is to play any card you have to to make a change. It's your course. There are no rewards for grinning and bearing it. I speak from experience. Take your course by the balls and make it do what YOU want it to. Most all of you will pass. There is a high pass rate at the moment. It is a pain in the ass though. The fact that most guys get through the second time is evidence of a failed system. They aren't better pilots a year later. They're better trained at contemplating the broken system.
Last edited by claraball; 18th Dec 2014 at 03:03.