Pilot Competency
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
helicopters are getting more sophisticated and complex and therefore ever less tolerant of incompetence
However that is not the point I think you are getting at, neither is long winded discussions about pseudo interpretations of client's "feelings" or the world in general.
I think you are asking;-
1. if someone does not have the capacity to recognise even the most simple error or trap and correct it quickly, then what do you do about it?
2. The check pilots who don't encourage people outside the square, where the boundaries are not even prescribed, what do you do about that slow mover?
That sort of activity to me is the 'esse' of training and checking, and very satisfying to see someone to progress when shoved into something uphill.
For sure good in house training covers most of this, but eventually you may wish to vet newbies, even those with thousands of hours.
Who do you complain to or ask to put their house in order when the subject cannot correct a glaring error never before demonstrated to him or seen by him.
Without talking about specific tasks, I have found a couple of corkers, that I would love to go right back to the subject's instructor and strangle the son of a gun.
Every sector of our industry possibly needs a peer review panel that can handle such complaints, is that what you might be aiming for G?
It's been discussed in our neck of the woods for sure. A panel is important because no one single person is the font of all wisdom, and it needs to be separated from commercial pressures.
tet
Shell keeps popping up here....and if one "knows" Shell Aviation and the people it poaches from its contractors who know they might one day wind up back at their old home grounds...knows how it really works....well...one would not hold them up as a role model.
Far too many instances of seeing bamboo backed brown nosers nuzzling out a cozy gig....playing the game while at the Operator....then instantly becoming blind and deaf upon changing shirts after signing on with Shell.
Seeing folks who not only cannot think outside the box.....hell fire they don't care to do so as they are quite comfy inside the box.
Back Bones atrophy when the spectre of losing a fat pay check and excellent perks looms if one pushes on the cardboard.
Shell is not the only outfit that suffers from this malaise.....it is a matter of degree amongst all of them....except for those who just don't even pretend to be something they are not.
Bit caustic my attitude perhaps but formed over many years in the offshore market with more than one operator and a swoop of oil companies.
When I see the same standard maintained by an Oil Company no matter which country in the World it is operating....then I will sign on to what I consider mere propaganda at this point.
Far too many instances of seeing bamboo backed brown nosers nuzzling out a cozy gig....playing the game while at the Operator....then instantly becoming blind and deaf upon changing shirts after signing on with Shell.
Seeing folks who not only cannot think outside the box.....hell fire they don't care to do so as they are quite comfy inside the box.
Back Bones atrophy when the spectre of losing a fat pay check and excellent perks looms if one pushes on the cardboard.
Shell is not the only outfit that suffers from this malaise.....it is a matter of degree amongst all of them....except for those who just don't even pretend to be something they are not.
Bit caustic my attitude perhaps but formed over many years in the offshore market with more than one operator and a swoop of oil companies.
When I see the same standard maintained by an Oil Company no matter which country in the World it is operating....then I will sign on to what I consider mere propaganda at this point.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 76
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Top End
Peer Review - Interesting idea.
How about something along the lines of the Institute for Advanced Motorists - the IAM. Home
This is a charitable organisation staffed by drivers with professionally recognised skills that invite all-comers to demonstrate their driving skills in a controlled environment against and well established model that involves up to a dozen trips. You only get to be a member if you pass the course and their are a string of financial benefits that go with membership.
How could it work for us? Maybe the charity arranges for access to a sim centre and the prospective member goes through a couple of LOFT exercises that tests flying skills and airmanship. The exercise is confidential and non-judgemental and when the right standard has been demonstrated the candidate gets his certificate and his membership. The scheme could be open to all-comers and be self financing. Candidates may justify the costs by the improved acceptability to employers. Employers may sponsor membership and maybe some employers will insist on membership for all applicants. Maybe a rich oil company could help us get it off the ground?
Well it's just an idea. I'll work on it if there is sufficient interest.
G.
How about something along the lines of the Institute for Advanced Motorists - the IAM. Home
This is a charitable organisation staffed by drivers with professionally recognised skills that invite all-comers to demonstrate their driving skills in a controlled environment against and well established model that involves up to a dozen trips. You only get to be a member if you pass the course and their are a string of financial benefits that go with membership.
How could it work for us? Maybe the charity arranges for access to a sim centre and the prospective member goes through a couple of LOFT exercises that tests flying skills and airmanship. The exercise is confidential and non-judgemental and when the right standard has been demonstrated the candidate gets his certificate and his membership. The scheme could be open to all-comers and be self financing. Candidates may justify the costs by the improved acceptability to employers. Employers may sponsor membership and maybe some employers will insist on membership for all applicants. Maybe a rich oil company could help us get it off the ground?
Well it's just an idea. I'll work on it if there is sufficient interest.
G.
Most of the oil companies I know will insist for the highest possible safety standards................................................... .......
As long as it doesn't cost them anything.
As long as it doesn't cost them anything.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good thread.
I think the system could be better. During a recent type rating course, the standard of some of the guys who 'passed' was shocking from what I saw in groundschool and the sim, and from what I heard from the instructors. There was also little/no standardisation between instructors and sim/air.
In the military as a QHI I saw plenty fail, am yet to see one fail on the 'outside'. That includes one where I was in the jump seat and would have failed him on at least 6 things. Couldn't believe it in the debrief when he was told he had passed, but I guess that's commercial pressure for you.
Generally the LPCs have not been too bad either way, notwithstanding the above shocker.
When type rating courses (EASA approved) don't include any night flying, I find it odd that the authorities agree you are competent.
I think the system could be better. During a recent type rating course, the standard of some of the guys who 'passed' was shocking from what I saw in groundschool and the sim, and from what I heard from the instructors. There was also little/no standardisation between instructors and sim/air.
In the military as a QHI I saw plenty fail, am yet to see one fail on the 'outside'. That includes one where I was in the jump seat and would have failed him on at least 6 things. Couldn't believe it in the debrief when he was told he had passed, but I guess that's commercial pressure for you.
Generally the LPCs have not been too bad either way, notwithstanding the above shocker.
When type rating courses (EASA approved) don't include any night flying, I find it odd that the authorities agree you are competent.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 76
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS
Sounds like a Shell-boy ran off with your first wife and another knocked over your mom on a pedestrian crossing then stole her handbag!
My Shell experience has not always been a good one but I will forever have respect for the very competent members of Shell Aircraft who taught me a lot about achieving safety by design instead of just mouthing off about it. Shell has put it's money where it's mouth is in this respect and funded much research in the bargain. They may not be perfect but by heck they are amongst the best in an industry that has many competing pressures. Better to have 10% of something than a 100% of nothing I say. We should be grateful for small mercies.
G.
My Shell experience has not always been a good one but I will forever have respect for the very competent members of Shell Aircraft who taught me a lot about achieving safety by design instead of just mouthing off about it. Shell has put it's money where it's mouth is in this respect and funded much research in the bargain. They may not be perfect but by heck they are amongst the best in an industry that has many competing pressures. Better to have 10% of something than a 100% of nothing I say. We should be grateful for small mercies.
G.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
One of the things lacking in aviation training and checking appears (and I must stress appears) to be truly objective measurements. Not sure how to do this, but simulators appear to be the ideal starting point.
All we need to do now is agree on the objective (as opposed to subjective) criteria....
All we need to do now is agree on the objective (as opposed to subjective) criteria....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 76
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shawn
If you are talking about a first step - the sorting of wheat from chaff - then we can use very simple and indisputable criteria. There are probably a small number of categories that we are talking about:
1 - Those who sail through a combined VFR/IFR LPC/OPC using the excursion criteria specified in the regs
2 - Those that get a good partial pass - just failed to make it
3 - Those that get a poor partial pass - only just managed to pass
4 - Those who fail all sections
The first line I would draw would be under '3' above. Group 3 would remain 'under review' and require further training. Group 2 would be allowed to re-take the failed section(s).
Group 4 are problematic and each would require counselling depending on the specifics of their problems. Hopefully a way forward could be found for them with a bespoke training course recommended. If they went forward would depend on their resources and their sponsorship.
The above could form Level 1 - Level 2 would be a LOFT flight scored with marks out of 100 with marks awarded for the discrete elements in the LOFT design.
Courses can be recorded and open to analysis if required. Course instructors should hold a Level 2 pass at an agreed level as well as an SFI rating on the type.
It's hard luck for those that hate sims but that is the way things are going so we had better get used to it as have our FW colleagues.
G.
1 - Those who sail through a combined VFR/IFR LPC/OPC using the excursion criteria specified in the regs
2 - Those that get a good partial pass - just failed to make it
3 - Those that get a poor partial pass - only just managed to pass
4 - Those who fail all sections
The first line I would draw would be under '3' above. Group 3 would remain 'under review' and require further training. Group 2 would be allowed to re-take the failed section(s).
Group 4 are problematic and each would require counselling depending on the specifics of their problems. Hopefully a way forward could be found for them with a bespoke training course recommended. If they went forward would depend on their resources and their sponsorship.
The above could form Level 1 - Level 2 would be a LOFT flight scored with marks out of 100 with marks awarded for the discrete elements in the LOFT design.
Courses can be recorded and open to analysis if required. Course instructors should hold a Level 2 pass at an agreed level as well as an SFI rating on the type.
It's hard luck for those that hate sims but that is the way things are going so we had better get used to it as have our FW colleagues.
G.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Playing in the sand
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. How much confidence do you have in the system you work within to deliver genuine competency?
Some, biggest problem is difference in standards between locals and expats. plus, once the company spends the time and money on recruiting, travel, accomodation, groundschool, etc seems they are ok with letting some slip thru rather than start over
2. How many pilots where you work have ever failed a Licence Proficiency Check or military equivalent?
A few, an experienced offshore captain that I did my initial training with failed and was sent home. Most that fail are given a second chance and pass. Problem is we are expected to be perfect every 6 months with no training or practice in between.
3. Are your Proficiency Checks a 'walk in the park' or a 'really good work-out'?
Depends on the instructor, some put you through the paces and tick every box. Others hold your hand and walk you through it. Personally, I think the IPC/OPCs are too easy.
4. Do you have colleagues you consider need extra training if so what percentage of the pilot workforce would they represent?
20 percent are below average and need additional training
5. Do you consider those who are given the responsibility for Proficiency Checks to be top-notch and competent?
Competent, yes. Are there line pilots that could do a better job? Also, yes. The training department is very political just like any other organization.
Some, biggest problem is difference in standards between locals and expats. plus, once the company spends the time and money on recruiting, travel, accomodation, groundschool, etc seems they are ok with letting some slip thru rather than start over
2. How many pilots where you work have ever failed a Licence Proficiency Check or military equivalent?
A few, an experienced offshore captain that I did my initial training with failed and was sent home. Most that fail are given a second chance and pass. Problem is we are expected to be perfect every 6 months with no training or practice in between.
3. Are your Proficiency Checks a 'walk in the park' or a 'really good work-out'?
Depends on the instructor, some put you through the paces and tick every box. Others hold your hand and walk you through it. Personally, I think the IPC/OPCs are too easy.
4. Do you have colleagues you consider need extra training if so what percentage of the pilot workforce would they represent?
20 percent are below average and need additional training
5. Do you consider those who are given the responsibility for Proficiency Checks to be top-notch and competent?
Competent, yes. Are there line pilots that could do a better job? Also, yes. The training department is very political just like any other organization.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 76
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks MLP
Thanks MLP your contribution noted. My PMs indicate that there are some out there unable to comment due to the nature of their current employment and a lack of anonymity. Those who haven't done so already are welcome to PM me with their answers.
G.
G.
1. It can’t and doesn’t produce across-the-board competency, only the achievement of minimum standards
2. A few
3. Generally the latter, but you have to ask the same question of the examiner after the same trip – he often sees it differently.
4. Occasionally, but they usually get it.
5. Generally, but too often they are either just good or senior pilots; they need to be good proficiency checkers, which is a different skill-set
If it’s competence you’re studying – then aside from the individual, it must lie between the NAA, the training organisation, the customer and the contractor.
NAAs are too small and get too little exposure to pick up individuals. And they are really only civil servants ensuring that the law is obeyed – achievement of the minima.
Training organisations can’t become known for failing most check rides – would you spend you money there? Can’t hope to place responsibility with them.
Customers can’t really be held responsible because there is no standard of competence which they can demand beyond hours totals. They can write a contract requiring training and testing processes, and usually rely on legal minima for guidance, the but they can’t keep their own pilots to test for competence. So they are stuck with auditing processes, which ensure sufficient exposure to training and testing to produce average pilots but don’t usually maximise potential.
Operators are the ones who know, but in my experience, their standards depend crucially on the standards and expectations of the accountable manger. If he doesn’t recognise or value competence, it rubs off; he simply won’t put the time and effort into testing for it, and won’t know when it’s falling short. It’s not a profit thing – it’s a belief. To implement it needs TRE/line trainers etc who understand that their role is to manage other pilot’s abilities, who can recognise competence, and who know how to act when they find it lacking. These TRE/line training roles are for pilots with great TRE/line-training skills, not great flying skills, and not necessarily seniority. I like Geoffers’ IAM kite, but I’m not sure those that need it will either bother or dare to risk a voluntary external assessment; it needs an incentive, like 10% off the insurance premium.
If taxis are an analogy, BSM will pass out all the students they can attract, the DoT won’t do more than check that the driver is licensed, and the fleet controller will know who’s good but has little incentive other than to sack drivers who dent his cars. The passenger has to take pot luck, and mitigate his risk by using a reputable company or pay less and take a chance which nine time out of ten pays off. Competence is down to the professionalism of the individual and is helped by a management that sees business growth through greater competence (ie careful recruiting and extra training and support). Perhaps superior competence in the majority of drivers is just a beautiful pipe dream; it certainly appears so!
2. A few
3. Generally the latter, but you have to ask the same question of the examiner after the same trip – he often sees it differently.
4. Occasionally, but they usually get it.
5. Generally, but too often they are either just good or senior pilots; they need to be good proficiency checkers, which is a different skill-set
If it’s competence you’re studying – then aside from the individual, it must lie between the NAA, the training organisation, the customer and the contractor.
NAAs are too small and get too little exposure to pick up individuals. And they are really only civil servants ensuring that the law is obeyed – achievement of the minima.
Training organisations can’t become known for failing most check rides – would you spend you money there? Can’t hope to place responsibility with them.
Customers can’t really be held responsible because there is no standard of competence which they can demand beyond hours totals. They can write a contract requiring training and testing processes, and usually rely on legal minima for guidance, the but they can’t keep their own pilots to test for competence. So they are stuck with auditing processes, which ensure sufficient exposure to training and testing to produce average pilots but don’t usually maximise potential.
Operators are the ones who know, but in my experience, their standards depend crucially on the standards and expectations of the accountable manger. If he doesn’t recognise or value competence, it rubs off; he simply won’t put the time and effort into testing for it, and won’t know when it’s falling short. It’s not a profit thing – it’s a belief. To implement it needs TRE/line trainers etc who understand that their role is to manage other pilot’s abilities, who can recognise competence, and who know how to act when they find it lacking. These TRE/line training roles are for pilots with great TRE/line-training skills, not great flying skills, and not necessarily seniority. I like Geoffers’ IAM kite, but I’m not sure those that need it will either bother or dare to risk a voluntary external assessment; it needs an incentive, like 10% off the insurance premium.
If taxis are an analogy, BSM will pass out all the students they can attract, the DoT won’t do more than check that the driver is licensed, and the fleet controller will know who’s good but has little incentive other than to sack drivers who dent his cars. The passenger has to take pot luck, and mitigate his risk by using a reputable company or pay less and take a chance which nine time out of ten pays off. Competence is down to the professionalism of the individual and is helped by a management that sees business growth through greater competence (ie careful recruiting and extra training and support). Perhaps superior competence in the majority of drivers is just a beautiful pipe dream; it certainly appears so!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 76
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manchester
I am amused by the BSM analogy but we have forgotten to emphasise one important thing and that is the 'duty of care' owed by our employers in Europe to their employees when selecting which 'bus' takes their employees to work,
The US does not embrace this concept hence the very second rate FAR 135 approach to Public Transport in which operations defined as 'spot charter' escape the true weight of responsibility for the safety of employees. The 'charterer' does not fly in the machine he has chartered so it is criminal in my mind that he can chose the lowest common denominator (cheapest) without facing the consequences if 'cheapest' means a standard that any other public transport passenger - nor the FAA - (Part 121) would not tolerate.
I remember flying the North Sea in my shirt-sleeves whilst my passengers wore immersion suits. Why? Because employers were obliged to ensure that all reasonable steps were taken to provide appropriate levels of protection if this was available at reasonable cost. (edit - at that time the oil companies valued their people mare highly than the helicopter operators)
If employers can no longer disguise their ignorance of the parlous state of the competence management process then they may stand in danger of complacency in the face of an ever increasing avalanche of 'human error' accidents. There may also be parallels for the maintenance sector. Simply saying that it is not their responsibility will cut no ice if the ultimate responsibility for the worker's safety depends on decisions taken by the employer.
My PMs include one CP who admits that the last 6 pilots recruited would never have made interview 10 years ago and another from a FSO who complains that all pilot error incidents are hushed up in his Training Department which regularly 'dings' its aircraft.
If an external and independent assessment service can be provided then we should investigate how best to do it.
G.
The US does not embrace this concept hence the very second rate FAR 135 approach to Public Transport in which operations defined as 'spot charter' escape the true weight of responsibility for the safety of employees. The 'charterer' does not fly in the machine he has chartered so it is criminal in my mind that he can chose the lowest common denominator (cheapest) without facing the consequences if 'cheapest' means a standard that any other public transport passenger - nor the FAA - (Part 121) would not tolerate.
I remember flying the North Sea in my shirt-sleeves whilst my passengers wore immersion suits. Why? Because employers were obliged to ensure that all reasonable steps were taken to provide appropriate levels of protection if this was available at reasonable cost. (edit - at that time the oil companies valued their people mare highly than the helicopter operators)
If employers can no longer disguise their ignorance of the parlous state of the competence management process then they may stand in danger of complacency in the face of an ever increasing avalanche of 'human error' accidents. There may also be parallels for the maintenance sector. Simply saying that it is not their responsibility will cut no ice if the ultimate responsibility for the worker's safety depends on decisions taken by the employer.
My PMs include one CP who admits that the last 6 pilots recruited would never have made interview 10 years ago and another from a FSO who complains that all pilot error incidents are hushed up in his Training Department which regularly 'dings' its aircraft.
If an external and independent assessment service can be provided then we should investigate how best to do it.
G.
Last edited by Geoffersincornwall; 29th Aug 2011 at 21:48.
If you believe the customer needs to be able to demand a better class of bus driver Geoffers, the bus trade association and/or the bus drivers themselves have to do the spadework of defining superior competence; I don’t think you can expect those outside the trade to understand the detail.
Customers would then have options at tender time – say P1s with:
Level 1: 6-monthly and annual checks as now.
Level 2: gets four hours sim above the minima every year
Level 3: 1 + 2 + an extra annual line check with another company’s examiner
These are only examples, may be unworkable, don’t actually enhance competence, only exposure to more training, and will have a cost, but at least the customer would have different “pilot competence” options and prices when picking his supplier. Should he then face a duty of care action, his face may be red if he asked for Level 1 pilots instead of something better. After that, changes might follow.
Of course a single bus company may decide there is benefit in starting down this track unilaterally; I hope they do and that they profit from it; it’s commercially risky but if it succeeded, others would be dragged along in their wake.
But then I have to repeat that this would not directly increase competence, only the costs and the numbers of training hours; we have to define the trainable aspects of superior pilot competence before we can hope to develop it.
Customers would then have options at tender time – say P1s with:
Level 1: 6-monthly and annual checks as now.
Level 2: gets four hours sim above the minima every year
Level 3: 1 + 2 + an extra annual line check with another company’s examiner
These are only examples, may be unworkable, don’t actually enhance competence, only exposure to more training, and will have a cost, but at least the customer would have different “pilot competence” options and prices when picking his supplier. Should he then face a duty of care action, his face may be red if he asked for Level 1 pilots instead of something better. After that, changes might follow.
Of course a single bus company may decide there is benefit in starting down this track unilaterally; I hope they do and that they profit from it; it’s commercially risky but if it succeeded, others would be dragged along in their wake.
But then I have to repeat that this would not directly increase competence, only the costs and the numbers of training hours; we have to define the trainable aspects of superior pilot competence before we can hope to develop it.
This is an interesting topic, but I suspect the thread starter is posing it from the perspective of an instructor/examiner for a training provider conducting Type Rating courses to a prescribed and constrained timeline, and not a current operator (although, obviously a very experienced one.) If that makes sense? I can well imagine the frustration of trying to get very weak pilots through an intensive course, with pressure to pass them at the end, and with no additional resources to do more training. I know of at least one similar organisation that has two types of certificate they issue at the end of the course: "Fred Bloggs has successfully passed the Jellycopter123 Type Rating course" and the other is "Fred Bloggs has attended the Jellycopter123 course." Some Authorities accept the latter for the issuing of local type ratings, or military or paramilitary equivalents (not too many clues in that last category of operator....!)
I think we try hard to, particularly given that IFR currency is hard to maintain, and so emphasis is given in this area.
Section failures are not unheard of, and are retested.
The aircraft checks tend to be easier as there are very few systems one can fail, plus the TRE is acting as a competent co-pilot and in a real world environment. Simulator checks are more difficult and, of course, are a normally constituted crew. That being said, they occur after recurrent training, so they are better prepared.
I think all pilots could benefit from extra training 
I'm head of training, so can't really comment! 
Some additional comments. I notice the words subjective and objective being used - I think one has to be careful here as one of the essential qualities of an examiner is he has to be able to make a judgement based on what he sees, and not just tick boxes. Similarly, the quoted excursion values are meant to be used as guidance, not simple limits. That latter point is very much the CAA stance. Some training providers actually brief those limits to the candidate prior to the check - that really is not what they are for! The candidate should be flying as accurately and smoothly as he can and not be worrying about whether he has broken an assessable limit - that's the examiner's role. One could say that is subjective. However, breaking a DA or a level bust are objective limits.
'A good work out' is an interesting comment and seems to imply a kind of 'load them up till they break' approach, which I think we have moved away from. Most accidents are caused by people flying perfectly serviceable aircraft into the ground, not by cracking under the strain of a cascade of multiple unrelated failures. I think the check flights/sessions should place greater emphasis on knowledgeable use of all the aircraft systems, the ability to maintain good situational awareness at all times, sound cockpit management and forward thinking, sensible decision making and CRM - both for normal and abnormal events - and the appropriate handling (in every sense) of reasonable and realistic malfunctions. At the end of all that the examiner should be able to apply the "wife and kids" test to determine the outcome, on top of any tick box exercise.
The multiple malfunction scenarios have some value as training exercises, and I don't discount them by any means. Being loaded up is a good experience and should improve spare capacity and prioritisation for less serious events, but I'm not sure it has a place in the actual check.
I think we are quite generous in the amount of training we provide, but it allows us to use it sensibly, to target areas that are obviously in need of additional training and to conduct tests without time constraints or the worry of there not being an opportunity to retest. Each pilot gets 20 hours per year - 10 in each seat - and in an aircraft such as the S-92 the Left seat time is almost as important as the Right seat. That's definitely one area to put emphasis on.
How much confidence do you have in the system you work within to deliver genuine competency?
How many pilots where you work have ever failed a Licence Proficiency Check or military equivalent?
Are your Proficiency Checks a 'walk in the park' or a 'really good work-out'?
Do you have colleagues you consider need extra training if so what percentage of the pilot workforce would they represent?
Do you consider those who are given the responsibility for Proficiency Checks to be top-notch and competent?
Some additional comments. I notice the words subjective and objective being used - I think one has to be careful here as one of the essential qualities of an examiner is he has to be able to make a judgement based on what he sees, and not just tick boxes. Similarly, the quoted excursion values are meant to be used as guidance, not simple limits. That latter point is very much the CAA stance. Some training providers actually brief those limits to the candidate prior to the check - that really is not what they are for! The candidate should be flying as accurately and smoothly as he can and not be worrying about whether he has broken an assessable limit - that's the examiner's role. One could say that is subjective. However, breaking a DA or a level bust are objective limits.
'A good work out' is an interesting comment and seems to imply a kind of 'load them up till they break' approach, which I think we have moved away from. Most accidents are caused by people flying perfectly serviceable aircraft into the ground, not by cracking under the strain of a cascade of multiple unrelated failures. I think the check flights/sessions should place greater emphasis on knowledgeable use of all the aircraft systems, the ability to maintain good situational awareness at all times, sound cockpit management and forward thinking, sensible decision making and CRM - both for normal and abnormal events - and the appropriate handling (in every sense) of reasonable and realistic malfunctions. At the end of all that the examiner should be able to apply the "wife and kids" test to determine the outcome, on top of any tick box exercise.
The multiple malfunction scenarios have some value as training exercises, and I don't discount them by any means. Being loaded up is a good experience and should improve spare capacity and prioritisation for less serious events, but I'm not sure it has a place in the actual check.
I think we are quite generous in the amount of training we provide, but it allows us to use it sensibly, to target areas that are obviously in need of additional training and to conduct tests without time constraints or the worry of there not being an opportunity to retest. Each pilot gets 20 hours per year - 10 in each seat - and in an aircraft such as the S-92 the Left seat time is almost as important as the Right seat. That's definitely one area to put emphasis on.
Last edited by 212man; 30th Aug 2011 at 10:55.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 76
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manchester
I may be making a judgement on a sample that is not representative but the more I speak with CPs and ODs around the globe and the more I witness personally the shortcomings of a significant minority the more I feel that even a fairly crude weeding out of the no-hopers from the twin-turbine sector would set us in the right direction.
I am a great believer in the restorative possibilities of effective sim training because I have seen it work but there are some who are simply not going to make it and they need a different kind of solution that should not include adding to the risk-management equation in a negative way. Maybe they can cope better in the single engine world and then 'grow into' the job over time.
G.
I am a great believer in the restorative possibilities of effective sim training because I have seen it work but there are some who are simply not going to make it and they need a different kind of solution that should not include adding to the risk-management equation in a negative way. Maybe they can cope better in the single engine world and then 'grow into' the job over time.
G.
I agree, especially that some are slow but sound learners, and I apologise for missing the point so far - I think your aim is to cut out the incompetent and the not-yet-competent from public transport, rather than enhance the competence of the majority which is what I thought you were after. Yours is a more achievable aim and I'll watch with interest.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 76
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
212
Your initial analysis is correct and the perspective I have may or may not be a valid one but right now it is the one I have.
Having done your job (Chief Trainer in another life) I understand exactly where you are coming from and I am horrified to think that you can imagine I subscribe to the 'beat-them-up' school of sim-trainers. I am totally opposed to that approach. I should have been more selective with my hyperbole.
Let's say instead that a good workout is for example doing the IFR section with a means of ensuring that no part of the outside world is visible to the candidate and a walk-in-the-park is not doing anything of the kind. Do you get my drift?
Company TRIs and TREs have the benefit of knowing the people you are dealing with and understanding their strengths and weaknesses. You also have the need to see them as a long term investment and that makes a big difference to how you can view the way forward for the weaker ones.
Nonetheless I have been at this SFI lark since April 2007 and the sample size is large enough for me to feel comfortable about what I say in the context of overall pilot standards viewed from a global perspective and not confined to civilian pilots.
We could have an 'Emperor's New Clothes' situation here if we are not careful. In the first 30 years of my flying career I lost 30 colleagues, close friends, mostly in accidents of one sort or another although a couple were lost in the Falklands. In the 12 years since I haven't lost one in an accident although two have died of natural causes, and that is what I call progress. Progress that has been hard won. Let us not see that progress disappear for want of some plain speaking or innovative thinking.
G.
Having done your job (Chief Trainer in another life) I understand exactly where you are coming from and I am horrified to think that you can imagine I subscribe to the 'beat-them-up' school of sim-trainers. I am totally opposed to that approach. I should have been more selective with my hyperbole.
Let's say instead that a good workout is for example doing the IFR section with a means of ensuring that no part of the outside world is visible to the candidate and a walk-in-the-park is not doing anything of the kind. Do you get my drift?
Company TRIs and TREs have the benefit of knowing the people you are dealing with and understanding their strengths and weaknesses. You also have the need to see them as a long term investment and that makes a big difference to how you can view the way forward for the weaker ones.
Nonetheless I have been at this SFI lark since April 2007 and the sample size is large enough for me to feel comfortable about what I say in the context of overall pilot standards viewed from a global perspective and not confined to civilian pilots.
We could have an 'Emperor's New Clothes' situation here if we are not careful. In the first 30 years of my flying career I lost 30 colleagues, close friends, mostly in accidents of one sort or another although a couple were lost in the Falklands. In the 12 years since I haven't lost one in an accident although two have died of natural causes, and that is what I call progress. Progress that has been hard won. Let us not see that progress disappear for want of some plain speaking or innovative thinking.
G.
Hi Geoff, I do know what you are saying, and apologies if my words were misunderstood - the written word can be like that sometimes! I do think the big training providers - including the OEMs are in a very unenviable position and is perhaps another reason why Operators should not be in such a hurry to divest themselves of training responsibilities - no names, no pack drill!
Good luck in your quest!
Good luck in your quest!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
A major operator's chief training pilot told me once that one of the major training providers was not doing him any favors (favours) because they never failed anyone, and he had to do the weeding out himself.
A lot could be done with simulation - things like smoothness vs. precision of control as an objective measure - the computer sees everything! We just need to know how to interpret the data.
A lot could be done with simulation - things like smoothness vs. precision of control as an objective measure - the computer sees everything! We just need to know how to interpret the data.
Depends on the simulator. I, and others found that the Bristow 332 simulator required a different flying technique to the aircraft. You just motored it around the pattern on the coolie hat.