Agreed, and for some reason this person decided to take this as some kind of personal attack on members of the training dept. Which it was NOT. I was simply stating the facts, and my opinion.
In the military, it was a reflection on the command if we consistently exceeded the programmed attrition rate. For budgeting and personnel management purposes it was always factored into the amount of personnel that were budgeted as throughput in the schoolhouse. The airlines also operate on a similar basis, but the amount of attrition is designed to be very, very small. It is a cost of business to operate a training department at an airline and your product out the door of the schoolhouse effects the safety of the operation, and ultimately the operational success of the airline.
The Q program is suffering from the same problems that Colgan had when they first introduced the SAAB 340. They went from a small 1900 operation to the SAAB, and it is my understanding that they had close to a 35% overall failure rate on the airplane. As a manager and an FAA inspector, those kinds of numbers would and should get their attention. It is the same with a CFI that can't get better than an 80% pass-rate on pilot applicants.
The Q program was accelerated into operation at a rate that was honestly faster than what the airline was honestly ready to handle. Airplanes don't make money unless they are in the air generating revenue and it was imperative to get the Q into revenue service as fast as possible. There were teething problems...That isn't disputable, and not unusual either for a new type of airplane with so many "firsts" for Colgan. Perhaps this could have been mitigated by "head-hunting" subject-matter experts from another current operator, purchasing or leasing state-of-the-art training aids (CAE Cockpit Procedures Trainers, FMS trainers, etc...). We just didn't do it...I say WE, because at the time the Q was announced and until February of 2008 I was working in the training dept. as a ground/sim instructor and line check airman. I wasn't involved directly with the Q, but I was well aware of what was planned for the initial cadre.
As of today, the company is still struggling to stay ahead of our training needs. This isn't their fault, it's a function of the many changes going on at the airline. This is a dynamic time when we REALLY have to re-emphasize safety, standardization and procedures. We are in a historically dangerous time for an airline; rapid growth, A LOT of new-hires arriving on the property, new deliveries of airplanes, new FOM and an imminent release of a new CFM on the SAAB, Contract negotiations and a merger (actually a consolidation, if you read between the lines).
So, YES I think we have a LONG way to go in improving our training. There are some steps being taken, but I see them as being mostly reactionary, and some are being watered down or not being managed properly from a curriculum review/update process. We simply don't have enough people, and we REALLY need a Human Factors manager that can oversee the CRM/TEM program.
And, lastly...Someone using my name was pretty low.
Regards,
ex-Navy Rotorhead