|
Command Failure Rates
I often read about the high failure rates of initial Captain Candidates at Cathay on this forum. In order to provoke thought on this subject, I spoke with the FAA Principal Operating Inspector (POI) at the major airline I work for some insight.
In North America, a failure rate at a major airline is considered excessively high if it exceeds 15% of first time Captain upgrade candidates. It was not made clear to me over what time frame this 15% represents but the Director of Training indicated that it was less than a single quarter in its fiscal year. As a result, the FAA would conduct an investigation into the airline's training program. Any deficiencies or additions would then be instituted into the program to bring the failure rate below the 15%. The program would not necessarily be any easier; rather it would be more conducive to a better learning experience yet still fiscally sensitive to the airline. This type of program has been in place since the early 1990's. With this in mind, I have a couple of comments and questions about what I am hearing about Cathay training. If you have a First Officer who has been through numerous checking events over the course of nearly a decade with Cathay, how can Cathay justify the high failure rate of initial Captain's? Have they really been unsafe over all those years as a co-pilot that would warrant them incapable of being a Captain? Is there any REAL oversight by a regulatory agency in Hong Kong to monitor abnormally high failure rates or do they even care? Is there any grievance procedure in place if a Captain candidate felt that they were being discriminated against? 60-80% of all accidents occurs as a result of poor group-decision making, ineffective communication, inadequate leadership and poor task management and has little to do with the technical aspects of operating in a multi-person cockpit or ATC operations area. In 1986 ICAO adapted a resolution that "In order to improve safety, OPERATORS must be made aware and RESPONSIVE to the importance of human factors in aviation through PROACTIVE learning and from the REACTION of others." My point with this quoted comment from ICAO and from my personal experience as a Check Airmen is that failure rates are not entirely indicative of ill prepared candidates (as I so often read on Fragrant Harbor forum), but rather a reflection of a poorly constructed training environment. Is Cathay creating better Captains because they can recite from memory a dogmatic passage from an operations or systems manual? If simple mistakes in the training environment have consequences later in your career what kind of environment do you think that creates? Preventing candidates from communicating well for fear of retribution creates a potential accident scenario. Is Cathay really any safer than any other major airline? Why is Cathay culture like this? Why does it permeate into the training department? My airline also has a hostile employer/management relationship but that is curiously completely absent in the training environment. Smarter people before me realized that our lives and families are worth more than petty politics. And so are yours. |
In Cathay Pacific a First Officer has to have exactly the same type rating and other ratings as the Captain. So the First Officer is checked against the same standards as the Captain by the Aviation Authority (CAD) check pilots in the on-going regulatory testing.
But to be a Commander in CX demands the highest standards of personal integrity, judgement and character which can be worlds apart from the mere ability to pole a hunk of tin around the skies, which is the minimum acceptable criteria for a First Officer. CX might be wrong in demanding such high attributes from their Commanders, but that's how they have always done it! As you point out, other airlines may operate to different standards. |
THE BEST FROM THE BEST FROM THE BEST.....................................
and the whole world is smiling........ |
Hehe. :p
But to be a Commander in CX demands the highest standards of personal integrity, judgement and character |
Airbus Driver
I spoke with the FAA Principal Operating Inspector (POI) at the major airline I work for some insight. We work under the HKCAD and they are privy to our training courses and all the changes that have been implemented over the last couple of years, all to try and get people through. I think there are major operation differences between a US major and Cathay Pacific one of which I believe is that we are NOT dispatched by Licensed Dispatchers and e.g. we do not check in with the company to see if we can continue a flight to our destination when crossing the N. Atlantic, as I have heard many a US flight do. Some people will unfortunately never make the grade, just like some never make it through flight school, but they are given a chance to prove themselves! 60-80% of all accidents occurs as a result of poor group-decision making, ineffective communication, inadequate leadership and poor task management and has little to do with the technical aspects of operating in a multi-person cockpit or ATC operations area. Is Cathay creating better Captains because they can recite from memory a dogmatic passage from an operations or systems manual? Smarter people before me realized that our lives and families are worth more than petty politics. from my personal experience as a Check Airmen is that failure rates are not entirely indicative of ill prepared candidates (as I so often read on Fragrant Harbour forum), By the way why are you shy of saying which "major" you work for, you know who we work for!! |
FlexibleResponse,
You can be my wingman anytime! You idiot. |
Hey Flex,
But to be a Commander in CX demands the highest standards of personal integrity, judgement and character |
Say what?
I have got to butt in. There are some people on another planet here, and I suspect that would be the 3rd floor planet called ......
Some of you guys sound like a PR firm! Airbus_driver. I personally know 7 guys who failed their command course. With the exception of 1, they all put in an incredible amount of work for their command course. Being ill-prepared is hardly ever an issue here at CX. They all know there is alot at stake. The historical failure rate just makes them even better prepared than ever these days. Your information regarding the program to do with failure rates is interesting. However, CAD have no real teeth here. It would be seen by CX as interfering. Again, CX simply do not have the political will to look inwards at themselves. One could say that maybe they are just not command material. Well, once again, I know each and every one of these people and know that is not the case. Apart from one of the group, I have flown with each of them and have left them to it on their sectors. Definitely no problem there. Vermin - get a life. Your drivel doesn't even warrant reading. Your racist remarks have no place here. electricjetjock - I believe you should add command decision making. Not change it from group decision making. You are technically correct in what you say (CAD etc), but the difference in dispatching is really not a huge issue. 99% of the time, the decision is very straightforawrd as far as route, fuel etc goes. i.e. go the route the computer says, and take the fuel the flight plan says! As has been said previously, the acid test is whether you would trust the guy with your own family on board. I can tell you (but you know already (this part of comment deleted - a bit on the nose eh what?)) that there are many command failures I would have no hesitation in trusting them with my family. The sad thing is that whether or not you pass a command course can depend on 2 very inmportant factors: 1. Who you get for your 3 and/or 4 Bar and extension sectors (if applicable), and 2. Who is on leave when your file goes around the training department prior to the final nod. |
Electricjetjock, nicely put & accurately stated which is a nice change for this Forum :D
|
Yes
Just a further couple of points. While CAD may be privy to any changes in the training system, it doesn't necessarily mean they will do anything about it if it is wrong. Case in point is when the '777 ground course in your own time' was changed only after the pilot's association challenged it. Only then was CAD forced to make a decision.
I would also challenge the help that candidates get after failing the command course. IMHO, there is in fact no real, effective and most importantly non-jeopardy/threatening system in place to assist guys in any areas that they may need to improve. CX training departments refusal to look inwards and address some of these issues is disappointing. Is it that the training system is so bogged down that they don't have the resources and time to do this? Don't know. Just a thought. As for a trans pacific flight, it would be a brave Captain who would, under most circumstances, not receive guidance from the company before making any decision about a diversion or tech stop. It's not about our ability to make a decision. It's about using all the resources available to us. |
All wonderful stuff.................but
where is my ruddy pay rise:{ I'm going backwards in this place.:{ |
CX training is basically non existant. All candidates are checked from the start, no coaching. There are a lot of egos blocking the system from achieving satisfactory results. Most trainers are by title only and have had little formal training in methods of instruction. Many candidates fail because the pilot conducting the assessment is not confident enough to make an accurate judgement and so takes the easy way out. There is no review of checkers and trainers and no transparency forcing them to adhere to policy or a code of ethics. Such behaviour would never be allowed to exist in any other airline or flt dep I have worked for.
Basically, CX training and flt ops in general is very old fashioned and has largely been left behind by more enlightened airlines. DTH. Ex USAF, CX Captain, US Major Checkairman, US LCC Checkairman, Corporate Checkairman, FAA inspector. |
Electricjetjock
the skygod impressions evident in your post do not reflect reality, as most in this company are focussed on keeping a low profile. Your artificial emphasis on commanders autonomy (or what command checking at CX is all about) is therefore a little irritating. Think of the LHR-HKG 744 a few years ago that turned back over Russia with an engine vibration problem. Company Ops whistled for a return to London, end of story… DTH: Right on the money... |
Cant speak for CX but KA has the worst training mentality of any airline I have worked for.
One pilot was given the tick verbally after a pc only to find he had lost the tick when the form arrived 2 weeks later. He queeried the check captain only to be told "From memory it was not worth a tick". One TIRE had to leave the debrief room to phone the manager flight training to ask him if the candidates performance was a pass or fail. Of course he failed but based on the input from someone who wasnt even present!!!! WTF. Its the only airline I have worked for where the check report is not sighted or signed by the candidate until its too late. The most common "hint" as to the poor quality of the training mindset is when a candidate questions the comments or the result of a pc/ct5. All too often the reason for the poor grade or failure changes from report to checker to manager. ie: they are not basing their decision on a framework of agreed criteria or performance indicators but on GUT INSTINCT. Tragic. |
Flexible Response wrote
"But to be a Commander in CX demands the highest standards of personal integrity, judgement and character which can be worlds apart from the mere ability to pole a hunk of tin around the skies, which is the minimum acceptable criteria for a First Officer."
What an absolute utter load of horse sh!t. It is however the sad, outdated criteria Cathay uses to decide who is worthy to "command" one of their pristine mobile bacterial laboratories. |
Hostile,
as rare as it is, I agree with you! Flex, keep peddling insurance or cars or whatever. I think the CX system works ok most of the time. But then I hear of a guy I flew with who failed his 4 bar twice....well actually, he didn't fail it, the star chamber failed him. Now how is that possible? The 3 bar was supposed to be the hurdle...4 bar was simply the CRM test. The guy is a pleasure to fly with. He is very laid back but that is because he is guilty of having far more intelligence than this job requires! Go figure? In Emirates I believe they have a much better system...at the end of your command ride, the checker tells you off as you are about to leave the cockpit for being out of uniform...he then hands you 4 bars and shakes your hand. |
Numero
I never thought I'd see the day. Welcome to the dark side................:E
|
Flexible Response wrote
"But to be a Commander in CX demands the highest standards of personal integrity, judgement and character which can be worlds apart from the mere ability to pole a hunk of tin around the skies, which is the minimum acceptable criteria for a First Officer." What an absolute utter load of horse sh!t. I don’t like the management and especially some of the more supercilious pricks they employ there any more than you do. But let’s keep that a separate issue here. OK? Whether or not one personally agrees or disagrees with the standards that CX requires of it Commanders is hardly the argument here. 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". From time to time the Command failure rate has always had blips both upward and downward. Natural leaders seem to sail through the process without even a blink of the eye. But for those other of us, well, we just have to learn the responsibilities and craft of Command the hard way. 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. In CX, Command is not a right. Command is earned. CX Command standards have stood the test of time and aren't likely to change soon. However, if anyone would prefer a less demanding route to Command, then they are obviously welcome to pursue options with other airlines that have lower standards |
NC,
I think you'll find CX manuals are now the same as Boeing. Checklists certainly are, but that might be a step backwards.:ok: |
Flex wrote
"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."
And my argument is that those "responsibilities" are exactly the same as any other operator of wide bodied aircraft. You have still not demonstrated to me why a prospective Cathay Captain is in need of so much more attention than any other pilot stepping up to the plate for a command. |
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: |
And my argument is that those "responsibilities" are exactly the same as any other operator of wide bodied aircraft. You have still not demonstrated to me why a prospective Cathay Captain is in need of so much more attention than any other pilot stepping up to the plate for a command. 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....:=
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 14:04. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.