Unfortunately many courses outcomes are dictated by "emotional" feelings rather than strictly performance evaluation.

Right you are Posit. I was told to get the trainers onside. I replied I didn't know it was a popularity contest.

Out of curiosity, I always ask any TC/STC I fly with, what are the usual reasons for guys having trouble with command courses.

90% of the time, they say - task management, prioritization, complex MEL management, maintaining the sequence of the SOP's, and putting themselves under real or imagined time pressure. Mostly in the pre-takeoff phase.
All the things that are thrown out the window in 90% of the sim 'training' that we do.

Excellent assessment of the system.

From claraball:

Absolutely, 100% AGREE!

I made it through, but only just, and it would have been very different had I gone with my gut feeling and asked for a change. I thought I was "man- enough" to deal with his pettiness and insistance on non-SOP calls. I was wrong and it cost me some time and a lot of heart-ache. He has gone now, thankfully.

Also, don't ask for a change of instructor. Find another way.
Second hand info, but it happens quite often that they just want you to 'deal with it' or 'be a grown up about it', if you want a change.
Same goes for a notorious checker for a QL or command check.
It's never worth it to risk it.

But if the guy's a p*ick and nobody tells him he's one - how's he ever going to find out??
Conversely, if everyone who is subjected to these guys who act like p*icks, asks for an Instructor change, somebody in charge is going to have to tell them not to be a p*rick!!:E:E

Yea, that's all nice in theory.
They know about all the characters in question, but will often not do anything to better the situation.
Knowing this, you'd have to be silly to stick your head out, especially just before an upgrade.
I had high hopes things were getting better, after a certain checker was stripped of his qualification to bully others.

I wish the union had more of a role to play in this, as it is a source of stress for many.

Yes - quite agree. Such is the standard of our so-called Leaders that they feel as intimidated by the bullies as students on Command courses do. Everyone knew about the likes of MFL for years but little was ever done about him and as for the Zimbo idiot (who eventually screwed himself which was nice) - he was quite famous for his ridiculous and petty questions like "What figure is the megaphone volume set to?"
Everyone, of course knows it's 7. Argue if you dare!!!.....:yuk:

Exactly.

The tumbling dick-weeds cost the company hundreds of thousands in failed upgrades. Mostly due to their poor training skills, vindictiveness, pettiness, and general mental problems.... and nothing happens... its all good.

But a well-respected STC picks up a newspaper in front of an S/O, and suddenly its Nuremberg all over again.

I have, on a couple of occasions, been given to a different trainer.
The result, in both cases, was: "I don't understand the problem; he seems OK to me."

Sometimes it just is a personality thing. I remember a guy I flew with as his FO and was, years later, in another airline, checked by him as a captain myself. I didn't like him the first time and it hadn't changed the second time.
Why? I have no idea; couldn't put my finger on the reason. Just thought he was a weird cove.

Shep 69, claraball, Silberfuchs
 

Some good posts like Shep69 claraball. Silberfuchs, There is a lot of Cat D done on the B747. Another reason for the high pass rate is the fact that it is direct entry F/O's, a position that required experienced applicants. Most freighter direct entry F/O's had previous commands, as some of them told me it was only their previous command training that helped them through.

My friend recently failed his command at EK, only because the wife walked out halfway through. EK is showing sympathy and assistance.

Silber

That about says it all...without stating the bleeding obvious.

Problem is that we have run out of DESO's with real flying experience.

Check and Training.
 

..........

Silberfuchs, is this an exceptionally dynamic group upgrading in 2014 on the B747, or is it just a counsidence that most of the closed minded, CX old school Checkers, transferred to other fleets in 2013 /.early 2014..

Some ideas for a better check and training system.

1. All 3/4 bar checks have to be done with 2 checkers. Mr Hardass in the RHS, and a checker of your choice, on the jumpseat. So if Hardass wants to fail you to the fleet office, the other checker has some input and has to agree.

2. All star chamber decisions resulting in a failed command, or failed command assessment, have to be notarized, and presented in writing to the candidate. So that the reasons, and path to improvement, are clear.

3. No ERAS reports are valid until signed off by the candidate, as well as management. And any dispute about the results is handled in the same way as a D&G proceeding.

4. All of us start taking MP3 recorders in the the sim and debrief for all sessions. And if something turns up on your ERAS that is inaccurate to the extent that it might jeopardize a command upgrade, then some evidence is available for you to contest the result, as per idea 3 above.

Feedback anyone ?

bridgeport, interesting suggestions. I do, however, have a few comments point by point:

1. Why not have an FO on the jumpseat for 3/4 bar checks? He's likely to be far more impartial surely and, if really necessary, side with an under-performing command candidate? Also, I would have thought it would be bad enough having one checker in the cockpit for a check - wouldn't two increase the pressure? Could it be that the candidate might say that the additional pressure affected his performance?

2. You're assuming that everyone reads company communications.

3. Firstly, what's ERAS? :) Secondly, I think there's a system in place for us to sign-off on our reports. What time frame do you have in mind for us to accept the report as factual? Also, see point 2 above.

4. Is it really that bad that you feel compelled to record a debriefing? Are people that insecure in their abilities and preparation for progression through the company? Is it really as bad as some here are making it out to be? In my personal experience, I've never had an instance where the written report didn't reflect my performance on the check or training event.

STP

Dear Steve,

1, 2 I agree.
3. Yes, you have to click to acknowledge the eras report, or whatever they call it this week, but there is no way of providing feedback.
4. We record everything these days. Cvr, Qar, crew control calls, sim sessions.
Why not record your debrief? It is the only thing which may safeguard your career in case of a he-said, she-said situation.
Nothing to do with lack of confidence in your abilities.
I myself and a number of people I know have, at one time or another, been blind sighted and given a different eras report from the debrief.
Count yourself lucky, that you haven't had that problem...yet?

What would you prefer

1. STC "Gents pass me your licenses, I've just got a couple of points".

2. Candidate 1 "Do you mind if I record the debrief ?" STC "Sure why not, and I will point out all the non standard SOPs you have, how your CRM and comms are sadly lacking and the debrief will last as long as the sim session."

Your choice.

Check and Training.
 

..........