Check and Training.
 

I would like to posit a question. How good is our check and training department ?
I know this has been discussed before, but after my fleet forum last month, I just can't help myself.

For the last several years, according to fleet forums and discussions with STC's, our command failure rates vary between about 30-70%.

Those failed candidates, would have joined the company, generally from 4 possible entry points. Everyone in my batch (about 12 guys) was one of the first 3.

1. Jet experience.
2. ex-military.
3. Turbine captains
4. HK cadets with a degree in a hard science.

They would then spend about 12 years in apprenticeship, during which time they should have done at least 60 sims, which equals about 240 hours training. 12 line checks as well as all the other ancillary stuff we know and love.

So.... such experienced guys come into the company, some with years of command experience... get 12 years of 'training', and still fail commands at the rate of 40-70%.

What does that tell you about the 'training' system that we are exposed to ?

I would suggest, it tells us the company culture systematically destroys many of the command skills that people arrive with.

Probably cos the 12 yrs of "training" you talk about involves box ticking exercises, Vol 8's, unrealistic training exercises, cost cutting, min sectors to TPE and back, some really bad trainers doing the checks (not all), management insistence on micro managing, the Cathay Way, our inability to hand fly aeroplanes at any time other than from 500' on the ILS etc etc etc

Did I miss anything??

We aren't as good as we think we are!

In most 'normal' Airlines, the career progress from Right to Left seat is just that. It is assumed that all the 'wrinkly bits' will be ironed out during the early years in the Company and you then wait your turn. The 'course' involves a few Sims to get used to the physical move itself (I have never heard of anyone having a problem) and about 6 or so Line Trips to get used (and be 'trained') to calling the shots, then probably a couple of checks and THAT'S IT!
Cathay treat people as though they have never seen them before so 40-70% actually fail the course. That is completely outrageous and (CX language for the 9th Floor - MUST BE COSTING A FORTUNE).
A previous CX manager who went to be DFO at GSS changed their 'command course' to about 12 sectors. Almost 100% pass rate too.
There isn't much Training but lots of Checking. People who are paid to Train and don't should be kicked out of the Dept. When did that last happen??
Anyway - been like this for decades and won't change.:{

Failure rates get really interesting when you look more closely. About 30 very senior FO's chose to upgrade on the bus from the 747 because all Boeing upgrades were not available for a significant time. About 2 didn't make it.

That's a 93% pass rate. Is it the system, the candidate or is it really true that real men can fly jumbo jets and the rest pansy around on their light twin?

CX C&T is 'something else' BUT they appear to have a low accident and incident rate.

Better to be lucky than good!

I would like to add one comment to this, or in fact ask a simple question.
During the 12 year apprenticship that has been mentioned and the 60 odd sim checks, how many of these guys actually turn up to their check without a copy of the instructor notes and a few laps around the chosen airport in the IPT.
I believe it's a letdown of the current system where a pilot can obtain, in advance the majority of what will be expected of him throughout all aspects of checking within he airline, and then for the command course he is expected to be able to pull it all together with absolutely no heads up on what is coming.
I believe some really good, experienced operators have been let down by this exact scenario..

Just my opinion...

That is very true. Maybe this is why management sticks with the current formula. It produces the quality of captain's that they want.
And I would agree that our captains do the job well. I have only flown with 2 guys I have thought not up to the job.

I agree with this as well.
In all my sims, I have yet to see another pilot with a methodical decision making process which can be applied to most scenarioas. And a couple of times I have been criticized for using mine... because it slows down the session. Even though my process takes about 2 minutes to do (assuming it doesn't pick up any problems).
Negative training right from day 1, because as 9024 says, we know the scenario before walking in, and are expected to rush through it, ticking boxes as we go, with no thought to any methodology involved.

The PCs have become so canned that there is not much to them. This makes the RT so over-crammed with elements that there is no way to get through it all unless you rip past everything. There is no Training in the Training sim because there isn't time to do anything except reposition for the next sequence.

I'd like more fuel for this 'real life' scenario - Sorry, the numbers are for CFP

I wouldn't take off into severe icing - Sorry, that's what the script says to do

..........

Radix
 

He didn't say that;

I believe he was saying that the guys in charge are using the mantra 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'... The company are rightfully happy with the safety record of the company, so in theory, why change it?

One other point I would like to put out there from the original post.

I'll use the turbo prop captain as an example, the pilot has about 5 - 10 years experience as a captain prior to joining CX, then spends 10 to 12 years flying with a multitude of commanders in an airline that where possible takes all the thought process out of our decision making on a day to day basis. We have CFP, CLS, RTOW, CPDLC, IOC and a multitude of other systems in place to do the decision making for us.
Part A is designed to cover just about every scenario.
We don't even have operational control of the a/c until the doors are closed..

So the experienced FO who is considered based on his prior experience to be a sure bet at a command upgrade has had a large part of his or her "prior experience" eroded away, and then expected to be able to step up in a few short weeks to be successful at the course.
Add to this the already mentioned simulator structure where we all know what's coming our way all results in an unfortunately high failure rate..

JY

With the increasing number of zero experience seat warmers gracing the right seat these days, Cathay's safety record won't last.

It will eventually turn into a single pilot operation, a la Dragonair. And safety will suffer dramatically.

But it's ok, by then the management morons who implemented this little cost-cutting diamond will be long gone, on to their new posting.

:ok:

Except at Dragonair the 'seat warmers' fly lots of sectors and actually learn to fly the aircraft. At Cx on a 777 roster they're relief commanders after a year as an FO, and then it's back to 1 sector a month max.

Insanity.

CX consistantly ranks in the top 5-10 of the world's best operations as ranked by LOSA studies. Obviously captains are only one small part of this and can only take a small part of the credit but all the different parts of our ops fall together to give these good results.

and who does these audits???????

We do! :D:D

No in fact we strictly don't. The Losa observers do just that. Observe and record. The results were collated by the LOSA collective and are now done by a private company. So you know not of what you speak.
Now, a different matter is what the company choose to do with the results.

Asian Eagle said it. Add the " never volunteer in the sim" culture as it's non jeopardy, until you make a mistake

Pass rates only look marginal beter because the Star Chamber Cat D so many. A procedure that you don't get to defend yourself at.

Jeez Guys, think of some examples of Captains/Aviators you've admired, read about, flown with over the years, in Cathay or elsewhere, present or past and imagine explaining this whining thread to them. Man Up FFS.

I'm going to 'man up' by declining command.