|
This is for YOUR benefit
Recently one was involved in a training "event" that resulted in good marks and an adequate write up.
I came away from my two days in the sim with more "techniques" disguised as procedures ringing in my ears than I have had hot dinners. "This is for YOUR benefit" seemed to be the stock standard response if when being shown something that was clearly designed by the training person to show how much more they know than I...when I would respond, "but why?" Or "that merely complicates something that was complicated enough to begin with" I've been genuinely heartened through recent phases that the standard of "training" has evolved from a Neanderthal inspired series of Apollo 13 rehearsals, into a much more practical and inclusive expose of the knowledge and understanding that it is deemed we require. Now it seems that old habits do die hard and infact certain individuals are slowly reverting to type. Am I being unfair fellow EK brethren? Or maybe I'm just a sensitive soul? |
I believe the actual phrase of choice is "More for your benefit than mine".
(Sounds more like "Mow fo yowa benefit than moine.") :ugh: |
Rest assured that there are a lot of their ilk in 'Training'... wherein it would seem that incapable wankers are often drawn to it like moths to a flame... and in response to them, your stock question must always be "can you show me where it says that in the manual?"... and even if they can, you must then proceed to make them explain it to you, i.e. as why it says what it says (wherein many of them haven't got a f'ing clue as to the why's and wherefores of what they're supposedly 'training').
That said, there are occasional gems amongst their ranks, but they are few. |
FALC,
I think we all feel your pain. In the last couple of years I have played the purest form of OIC and the results were positive. I paid lip service to it in the past but at times would genuinely pursue a line of question if I thought it was worthwhile. Then I flew with an old timer on a ULR 2 years ago - completely sublime operator - who had some really good insight (for me at least). He said he says two things on a PPC - "hello/goodbye" Now I literally don't say a word - I just sit and nod - even if I know the guy - LITERALLY not a word. If I'm asked - I mumble the minimum. Cynical? Yep . Does it work for everyone? Nope But my PAMS have shot through the roof! from all 3s to " 3s gusting 4s!" ; > f. |
Wow! Flash backs to the Boeing here. The days when men were men and if they didn't like you, you failed.
The don |
It's not their fault because it's all they know. They do know much, but it all originates out of the books. For them aerodynamics happen in the OPT, fuel decision in some office by pushing a button and RNAV approaches in the FMS.
Airmanship and common sense is something of a past time, quite often denigrated to the image of Denzel Washington's interprettion of a "real" pilot. It's the fault of the airline. As long as they shun experience, especially gained outside of the EK cocoon, as long as they promote the Pampers-Captain fraction to TRI/E's almost the day after passing the upgrade, with the eventual exeption of a former BA buddy, this will not change. I agree with fliion, just nod and do what they want, it's in the sim anyway. On line keep doing what's safe and reasonable. Don, i might agree that this could be a flashback to the Boeing days, but did you ask yourself the question why the distance between trainers and line-swines is supposedly smaller on the dugogn? The answer can point two ways ...... |
Untill the automation WILL fail them!
'Airmanship and common sense is something of a past time, quite often denigrated to the image of Denzel Washington's interprettion of a "real" pilot'
This disease is spreading to all of the airlines. Sadly and the B787 is in my opinion proof of that the B has also given in. Just wait for another AF over the ocean,.....or something alike. |
Do you remember getting that email after your recurrent training asking you for feedback? Did you fill it in? I'm gussing no. So rather than go through the proper channels of you (the customer), providing constructive feedback to the training department (the service provider) you'd rather have a whine and a moan on Pprune. :ugh:
Try it, you might be surprised at the results. Trainers that have been identified as being deficient or not training the way the company expects have been themselves retrained, or in some cases removed, but it's up to you to highlight that your expectations weren't met. |
Subject
I take it the essence of the subject is the briefing/debriefing
Alas all airlines in the ME are similar in that regard The best practice is to nod .. Left and right .. Marvel at the information received like you are on coke .. And don't ask questions unless you are seeking knowledge and not just standing your ground :D |
S & L
Do you remember getting that email after your recurrent training asking you for feedback? Did you fill it in? I'm gussing no. :ok: |
Good for you Falcon! :D
|
It was always going to happen, the seeds were sown when they had they last management restructure and got rid of many of those that were driving the change towards seeing the big picture rather than the trivial detail. Anyone with the balls to challenge the system got them chopped off!
The feedback form has to be worth a stab. |
Someone recently posted on this board about their experience with the training feedback email.
The gist of it was they had submitted the form a couple of years ago and the training department eventually acknowledged receiving it just a couple of months ago. Based on this it may be that training feedback is not of much interest to the training department. Like other things here it may be more about what appears to be done rather than what is actually done. |
Is that the Boeing fleet? I dont know anyone leaving the BigBus
|
whossorry now wrote:
Someone recently posted on this board about their experience with the training feedback email. That might have been me. I filled in a training feedback form many years ago and two years later it came back to my inbox "deleted. unread". It actually said that lol... So yeah, no more wasting that time for me. |
Bloody Austronauts...
This is more for YOUR benefit than moine, don't take your 777X with folding wings down the pub in Australia...:E:E:E
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/...faces-charges/ Seriously though, as fliion said; the less you say the better. Sit back, smoke the shisha, smile and nod...guaranteed 4's all around. |
A large number of TRE's have left the training department in the last 3 months with more planning to go. Most of these had a lot of experience - and not simply the "magenta line" type. They also had many hours on type and in training. Most importantly they were big picture guys and were constantly pushing the training agenda against the checking and box ticking mentality that was constantly being pushed by a company obsessed with data collection but not entirely sure how to use the data it collected. They will go and be replaced by less experienced checkers that will tow the company line and check against rigid policy and the letter of the OMA. "Resiliance" and airmanship will be a thing of the past. That will not be good for any of us. We've been down this road before to the point where new captains were terrified of making any decision lest it be the wrong one. Better to endanger the aircraft than risk a grilling from Fleet. How the company is not alarmed by the drain from training can only be explained as ignorance and arrogance. In time it will probably cost them dearly. A lower grade of training, robotic checking leading to unneccessary failures, leading to more training, lower standards and on and on it will go. Hopefully nothing more serious than a simple loss of profit and standards. While the bean counters cannot measure experience and never will get it, one would think the cost of replacement alone would give pause for thought. There has been little attempt on the company side to offer much to training captains to entice them to stay. I dont think there's been an increase in pay for years and apparently the rosters get worse and worse. Little wonder that they choose a life they have more control over by going back to the line. They purged good training management, and are now purging the trainers themselves. Good for rotation I suppose - everyone can have a go and get it on their CV. But we will pay for it two or three times a year at least. Every year. Now do you see? It does seem a waste that good talent appears to be forced out of training and that experienced and highly capable line captains with a decent attitude and strong training background are not inclined to apply. Or am I wrong? |
Falcon I'm trying to determine your real complaint. You seem to be saying that if a procedure or technique is not in the book (ie SOP) then it shouldn't be done and/or taught. Is this it or were you critiqued on the techniques and annoyed about that?
There is a preponderance of de facto "SOPs" in everyday use now. If the company defines the way of doing EVERYTHING then when something is not included crew will not know what to do. If they don't, then the result is techniques creeping in. If they don't teach techniques, everyone else creates their own. Airmanship was mentioned but that is being well and truly stifled; now even a defined procedure/patter for the load sheet data which means something new on which to be critiqued. Fantastic, what next? This has to be one of the most anal retentive airlines in the industry yet, oddly, those in charge do not stamp out the tendency towards divergence such as, off the top of my head, missing or incorrect standard calls, or even something as simple as the "takeoff" call before (not after) TOGA. How does someone get through training without being told the call is Positive "Climb", not "Rate"? Or am I wrong? The other day someone made a standard (I think) call telling me he was in "managed descent" FFS. One guy in WX radar, the other in TERR for take off, every time - when did that become SOP? I thought we use taxi lights on during taxi but you have guys switching them off when stopped and no one else around and in broad daylight! But they rigidly make sure the logo lights are off at 10K. It's amazing which things are adhered to and which aren't. For an airline that defines itself by SOPs, the lack of adherence to so many details is amazing. SOPs or techniques, I'd be pleased if they could just hammer into people's heads not to press their greasy fingers all over the f**k**g screens! |
Falcon is spot on.
Teach me every technique you want to. I have no problem taking a look at another persons way of doing things.....BUT....don't grade me down or write comments because I don't like your technique so I chose to still use my own method. Safe flight...safe outcome...no doubts about safety of flight...should always be a 4........3 if you miss regular standard calls and have to be consistently prompted to complete items when they are supposed to be done. Easy as that. |
Outatowner
Although I agree with some of your post, I still cannot quite see, how you you can get irritated if someone calls "Positive climb" instead of "positive rate". This chap probably flown Airbus before where the call is "positive climb". Same with managed descent. Don't we all mix up things once in a while? On the other hand: I thought we use taxi lights on during taxi but you have guys switching them off when stopped and no one else around and in broad daylight! But they rigidly make sure the logo lights are off at 10K. It's amazing which things are adhered to and which aren't. 8.3.0.3.1 c. During taxi, any time the aircraft is brought to a complete stop, the parking brake shall be set. To signal intent to other pilots, consider turning taxi and runway turnoff lights OFF when stopped, yielding, or as a consideration to other pilots or ground personnel. Lights must be turned back on when resuming taxi. Just saying... :) Live and let live:ok: |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 22:19. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.