Busy B,
who told you our manuals are like boeing?

For example... boeing procedures starts with CN/FO doing prestart duties and then PF/PM begins after start. Thats how boeing does it...thats how EK and QF do it. Thats NOT how we do it.

If we had boeing manuals we would have the boeing logo on them. Boeing will not allow their logo on any manuals that do not align with their recommended procedures....like I said, we obviously know a lot more about flying boeing than boeing does...and EK...and QF....etc etc

NC,

I'll stand corrected on the CN/FO -PF/PNF bit but almost all else is a straight copy.
All our checklists were changed to align with Boeing although from my personal experience that is an error. In the past Boeing has clearly ignored problems that Airlines operating their aircraft were experiencing and in another case deliberately kept a problem secret from the operator despite it causing a number of crashes (not just incidents). Boeing builds great aircraft, they don't operate fleets of them and have to rely on feedback on operational problems. Airlines are in the front line and need to react more quickly.

Any airline worth its salt will have differences from Boeing untili in each area Boeing has resolved the problem/checklist.:ok:

Oi! Laddie! A CX candidate for Command needs to perform precisely to what CX management require of him in his duties, not a touch more, not a touch less.

Do ye not see the subtlety here matey?

I suspect you are a very intelligent person and have enormous Command potential. So don't blow it away by standing on your high horse and not understanding your adversary!

And....
 

...your use of the word 'adversary' sums it up nicely. It is not a matter of working together (CX and command trainees) to get a guy through his command. It is a matter of who wins the battle. It is an 'us and them' thing. So much for 'same team, same dream'!

And as for this comment:

"If you sit around picking your nose while hoping that someone will shake some holy water on you through the belief that you have some God-given right bestowed by seniority number, then you may be sadly disappointed. You have to personally demonstrate to the company that you are worthy of the responsibility and that they can trust you to carry out the duties that they require of you."


I have not flown with ANYONE that believes that the mere fact that their seniority number comes up means that they are entiled to a command. You need to give 99% of F/O's way more credit than that. It verges on the insulting!

A colleague recently commented to me (not a command failure) that the problem is that the training departrment demands perfection; not just excellence. There is a very subtle, but important, difference between the two. I challenge the training department to come up with anyone without any skeletons in their closet.

Flex - while your attempts to defend the training system are commendable (someone has to), I think even you would admit that the mere fact there is a huge difference between the pass rates on the Boeing and Airbus fleets indicates there are some issues. That's just the starting point.

The truth speaks for itself when STC's and management pilots are saying Cathays Command problem is systemic.

Yes there are some individuals who for whatever reason just do not have what it takes to be a Captain and will never pass but when many many guys are failing Commands and being Cat B'd it either shows its systemic or that Cathay are recruiting the wrong individuals. The latter I find unlikely because just too many people are failing.

Surely when a failure rate in some months is in excess of 80% this indicate it's systemic. How can it be anything else?

Rumour control has it that the 777 fleet are doing their best to make the Command course better and I think they are doing very well when you look at the recent pass rates on that fleet. So you have to hand it to Cathay in that they are at least addressing the problem. One is not saying they have fixed it but it appears that they have recognised the issue and are dealing with it.

Yes, I agree some very good points made by newbie and Jockey.

The reality of Command training is that you may be paired up with someone that doesn't quite understand where you are coming from and what special needs you may require. This can cause a chain of events that can create perceptions that may be difficult to turn around in the remaining Command Training time available.

A talented trainer will be able to extract the very best from any raw material that he is given. A gifted trainer will even be able to take a previously crushed trainee and rebuild him to the extent that he regains confidence in himself so that the end result then becomes a given.

A highly talented and gifted trainee will excel with virtually any trainer the system throws at him, but of course these trainees are more in the minority.

The system is designed to give the trainee the benefit of the doubt. So don't waste the opportunity.

It's your Command course. Don't let anyone take it off you.

Somehow the corporate knowledge seems to know when someone who has unfairly missed-out, has been hard done by. This message is not lost and invariably such a candidate seems to sail through on the next go. These Commanders then seem to go on and eventually make the best trainers.

We even once had an FO who was Cat D’d due to his affiliation with the AOA. The hue and cry from the senior pilots (and one gentleman in particular taking on the management) soon had this situation reversed.

CX desperately needs Commanders. The CX Command training is expensive. So they are more interested in successful outcomes then you are (if that is even remotely possible!).

“The standards have remained the same for the last 50 or 60 years and seem to have served the airline well. As they say from time to time, "it's our train set and we'll run it any way we feel like”.

And here in lies the biggest problem with HKG. No need to change, it already works well, progress isn’t important, change is to be avoided. Maybe we should stick to using gramaphones and driving model T Fords too.

Surely the aim of the training system is to pass all candidates safely and until then, there is room for improvement.

CX knows who the bad and the very bad trainers are but elect to do nothing about it.

All command reports are favorable, except one from these very bad trainers. The review board fails the trainee and has him sit on the side lines for 18 months.

I am sure the trainees is comfortable with knowing that management thinks he was hard done by but that very bad trainer is still there 18 months later and it is your second and final go at command.

These very bad trainers are costing CX and the Trainees lots of money. It would be better for all around if the company striped these trainers of their training status and get new blood in the system. Pay a bit more that you save by getting rid if these trainers and spread it amongst the trainers and you will get more TC’s and the people that you want to join.

But no, it’s the old boy’s school of doing things here. The very bad trainers will remain and some trainees will continue to get screwed and will cost CX lots of money.

Is it true that one Base Training Captain just lost his Base Training Status because he would not change a Senior Training Captains (very bad trainer) score from a 2 (which is CX’s minimum standard)? Only several weeks before another Base Training Captain had to give this same Very Bad Trainer a berating because of his training methods (believe this was in front of a First Officer which is unheard of in Cathay)? This very bad trainer is still a Senior Training Captain but was an ex manager which means, he will be untouchable.

Does not give you much faith in the system.

Flex I agree with you ( doesn't happen very often so don't get accustomed to it):} about talented and very talented trainers but we don’t seem to have many here at CX.

And further more....
 

Flex - some fair points. There is one thing I would like to make comment on:

"The system is designed to give the trainee the benefit of the doubt. So don't waste the opportunity."

I don't believe the trainee is generally given the benefit of the doubt. Some pass their check and when their files are passed before the board, their course is terminated without recourse, without further training and often subsequently with minimal counselling and guidance (just more checks prior to their next shot).

I should add that in some ways I believe they shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt(depends very much on the circumstances). If there are some issues that come up in the ERAS report(s), then they should be researched more and steps taken to address these issues - BEFORE the 3 or 4 Bar. This has already happened in some cases and trainers/checkers have been challenged (sorry - asked to clarify) on some of the comments they have made in training/check reports. The fact is that some checkers/trainers are shocking at writing reports and turn minor stuff into career busting statements.

A typical example may be that the candidate is slightly late in decelerating to 250kts below 10k and this just turns up in his ERAS report as 'lost situational awareness' without any expansion. If it happens often, it is an issue. If a once-off, then a verbal debrief and move on to more important big picture stuff.

I agree that there are some outstanding trainers and checkers in the company. It is just a pity that a very few influential and powerful checkers continue to wreak havoc on trainees and their careers.


As for this comment:

"Somehow the corporate knowledge seems to know when someone who has unfairly missed-out, has been hard done by. This message is not lost and invariably such a candidate seems to sail through on the next go. These Commanders then seem to go on and eventually make the best trainers."

Agreed. This seems to be the case. However, in many cases, it need not have been the case in the first place(in my very humble opinion).

Again on Flex's back when he said:
 

"A talented trainer will be able to extract the very best from any raw material that he is given. A gifted trainer will even be able to take a previously crushed trainee and rebuild him to the extent that he regains confidence in himself so that the end result then becomes a given."


.......................................and a REAL trainer will neither treat someone like "raw material" or "crush" them.

Thanks for demonstrating my point very nicely flex.:ok:

Some folks live with a chip on their shoulder.

Some folks live with a chip on both shoulders.

And then yet again some folks just get on with the business and enjoy the **** out of life.

It's your life and you only get the one run through. So don't let anyone get under your skin. If you do, guess what? It's not their fault; it's your fault for allowing it to become so.

There is no perfection in the training system. And no matter how much we crow about it, there never will be perfection. So when you sit back and think about it, perhaps it would be more advantageous to devise strategies on how to cope with the existing challenges.

I can guarantee you that when we were younger, we whinged about all the same things that you guys have put forward and a lot more. Nothing has changed, except the names, and I suspect never will. I would like to think that we have improved the training system over the last 15 years, but then I have always been an optimist and possibly a dreamer.

Hostile23, be careful that your greatest competition is not indeed, Hostile23. Give yourself a break and don't be too hard on yourself. We can strive for perfection, and on the odd occasion, achieve excellence. In the meantime it is better to realise that we are human, and we are surrounded by humans who by definition are imperfect.

With a little understanding and consideration you can achieve a whole new level of understanding and contentment. As an experiment, try it on Mrs Hostile23 and reap the rewards!

It might be true...
 

After a few months here, I am understanding what everyone is talking about. It isn't perfect at CX, it'll take a lot of extra work to figure it out.

"crushed trainee"
says it right there,
what airline aspires to produce "crushed trainees" ???
well done CX
do you have a quota of "crushed trainees" per month?
even the term is distasteful,
why anyone would want to work for CX these days is beyond me!

failure rate
 

Then again there are some really great reasons given for failing such as:
"there's a vibe in your file"
or
"you show a mild lack of 'command presence' "
all very objective stuff really...something a trainee can take action to improve on...not!:8

What a load of crap.

There is no one out there trying to shoot us down. We have GPSs and IRSs. We are flying aircraft designed to be operated by monkeys.
If an airline can't get 90-95% of their 8000+ hour pilots through command training problems lie elsewhere.

more bananas all round then!

Inciter
 

I think your "problems with the monkeys" overtone is way out of line . There is a reason why guys fail. One reason only. A system that is completely inadequate and lacking in any true training structure.

Hostile23,

I ve been in this game for a while now just as I am sure you have.
Its a great job and a lot of Fun but it ain't rocket science.

And then I arrived in Hong Kong.

I rather doubt it...

Reading this thread one thought comes to mind and that's money and lots of it. All this command failure rate as its called here is expensive. So I'm surprise somebody from the CX head shed as we call it doesn't come over and ask why his (CX) training cost are so much higher than say UA BA AF NW....:=