Failed Checkride Poll

[TWA Dude]

Some of you guys are over-reacting. Lautenberg is simply like most people who are ignorant of everything having to do with aviation. Babbit's job is to educate him. Judging purely from the exchange above he should've done better but I don't think we need to start worrying about mass terminations.

 

[Tripower455]

Did you ever make it to a major airline?.....and if not do you think this stopped you? I doubt it did if you are on somewhere.

I did and it didn't, but that's no excuse for that kind of nonsense. Ironically, the DE's career stalled and fizzled after that commuter went Tango uniform. He tried, but was blackballed at every place he applied to. Karma's a bitch!

I didn't deserve to fail that ride, any more than most of the other 60% of the guys transitioning from other airplanes into the ATR at the time.

My entire point was that if we had Lautenberg's 1 strike rule, it would've killed my career through no fault of my own. Even if it was my fault, I spent 6 years prior to that with no problems whatsoever, and almost 20 afterwards.

 

[Dizel8]

I am quite certain, that even the Space Shuttle pilots mess things up in the sim now and again!

The Senator is an idiot!

 

[cjdriver]

Can someone tell him it's not the failing of a single check ride they should be concerned with, it's the frigging 500 hour hires at the regionals.

 

[TheInsider]

Often, the failure says more about the training than about the candidate.

I highly disagree with that statement. After having administered hundreds of PC's a well-trained and good candidate may just have had a bad day. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[whymeworry?]

What a joke.

On a worldwide basis, this business is riddled with shtty pilots who hide out in the training department because their skills are so lacking. Now Mr. Senator wants to put the hire/fire decisions in these guys hands?

Are you kidding me?

In 20+ years I haven't busted a ride, having nothing but the best, most relaxed checkairman doing my trng/ checking. Then last year I had 2 NIGHTMARE checkairman who I had to go after once my training was done. While I never busted the ride, during my training I had to go to the union about their behavior. Both were screamers in the sim. One wrote me up for "not ironing my shirt" (FWIW, I iron my shirt before every trip, but that just goes to show how this guys loved to talk to every pilot like they were in the 5th grade). I was told to get through the ride first, THEN take up the issue. That I wouldn't have enough credibility unless I got through trng first... that it would seem like I was just writing a guy up to make up for my own issues in trng. So I put up with these guys yelling etc. My sim partner went ahead and wrote one guy up. I get through the ride and then all kinds of road-blocks are put up to protect these guys. It was only after pursuing it for 3 mos that I finally began to make headway (I refused to give up). Then the Fleet Mgr calls me at home and thanks me for having the fortitude to see this through... that these trainers have been a problem in the dept for the past 10 years! WHAT??? Why the fk were they allowed to continue down this path of destruction for so long? Numerous Captains were busted during their routine line checks by one guy. He told me they couldn't remove them frm the dept because no pilot would follow through after trng.

The system is not in place to rid the trng departments of these bad apples. The company choses their checkairman based on ass-kissing, being company kool-aid drinkers, etc. Not based on flying skills. Ok, I know there are a lot of good trainers who are selected for their skills, but they are the exception to the general rule by mgmt.

I'm out on leave now flying for an overseas carrier. Had TWO MORE checkairman in trng at this company that displayed the same behavior. YELLING at my FO, cutting corners on checklists then blaming me for it later, etc. In fact, the CP of training called me last week and wants a report on one of the trainers. The FO wrote him up and he wants my story of the events as well. While I got through the training w/o any problems, it only firmed up my opinion that, a lot of the time, only the worst pilots are selected as trainers. NOT ALL OF THEM ARE, just some. I myself spent a good portioin of my career as an examiner and checkairman. So I know there are good people in trng departments. But there are just as many bad ones as well. BTW, this guy is retiring next month and, despite my and the FOs report and the numerous other reports against him, the company decided to bring him back after retirement as a sim instructor.

I have a buddy who flew for AQ for 15 yrs. He spent 8 yrs as a commander, has over 10,000 hrs on the 737, 4000 PIC, is an amazing pilot. I've seen him fly many times. After AQ shutdown he went to work for an overseas carrier. He busted his line-check for some bs SOP issue. Had nothing to do with his flying. So they make him sit right seat for 6 mo as punishment. He just got through that and is now a Captain again. Should he have been nixed from the business because of one wrong repsonse to a checklist item? One response that was really just a debrief item, especially since he was PF at the time. That one wrong response, with the gov't in the jumpseat, caused his whole training to unravel.

Have another friend who has 12,000 hrs ttl time incl 6000+ PIC jet. He shows up for his ride after being on vacation for 3 weeks. The checkairman asks to see his manuals. Since he was off he didn't get to putting in the latest revision. The guy busts him right there in the briefing.

Should he be kicked out of the business for that??? A completely spotless career, stellar commander, and one admin fkup lead to a bust.

The point is, the system is flawed. Passing a ride is not black-and-white. It is subjective and up to the checker. It's not like a multiple-choice check. And such a scenario would not fix the system.

Colgan showed stick pusher videos.... THAT is the problem. Their training program sucked. Most trng programs do. It's up to the pilot to figure it all out on his own. I know this subject VERY well having spent 8 yrs in the training department as a pro-pilot (rather than pro-mgmt) checkairman. I can tell you I was very unpopular in chkairman meetings since I often took issue with mgmts tactics to make trng unrealistic.

Rahter than focusing on the pilot, the senator ought to be considering all the other variables... fatigue, weak FO (she retracted the flaps in a stall... WTF??), poor training program, and plain 'ol experience. The Capt and FO were both low time. A recipe for disaster regardless of the aforementioned.

 

[Paul R. Smith]

Along the lines of "if you make one mistake then you should be fired".

Perhaps then we should demand that congress (both house and senate) take a paycut. Well at least they should stop voting themselves more raises. The country is broke, and everyone needs to do what is right. There is simply too much "featherbedding" going on at the taxpayers' expense. Its not like congress makes its money from doing their job as public servants.

 

[AppBrookie]

Often, the failure says more about the training than about the candidate.

Case in point- we had a few years at AAI where the failure rate for initial Upgrade was over 50%.

In 20+ years, I have never failed a checkride, but that doesn't mean I won't fail the next one, especially given the fact that in 5 years I have had zero training. Nothing but PC's.

Ty,
You hit the nail on the head, my time spent there, the training was much worse than what I experienced at the commuters.
Good Luck Guys

 

[GogglesPisano]

I highly disagree with that statement. After having administered hundreds of PC's a well-trained and good candidate may just have had a bad day. Nothing more, nothing less.

Obviously you've never had the pleasure of working for a carrier with a 50% bust rate. I have: ACA ca 1999-2000 when more than half the CRJ captain candidates pincked on their upgrade. A few years later at World 6 FO's pinked on their recurrent in a relatively short time-frame. Must be a lot of "well-trained candidates" simply having "bad days." Your "hundreds of PC's" don't give you a snapshot outside of your own carrier. There are a lot of low-budget, substandard training departments out there with a lot of reprehensible, low-life dirtbags running around with their little pink pads and tiny wangs.

I can remember more than one of apologist at ACA who came from another training program within the company. He publicly berated those who failed as simply "not devoting themselves" to the CRJ training program. He had the shortsightedness of making this statement just before going through the training program himself -- and failing. Your statement is eerily similar.

As long as checkrides are subjective, they should not be used as a sole determinant in whether one gets to continue feeding their families. Have a computer grading the event is a step in the right direction.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

On a worldwide basis, this business is riddled with shtty pilots who hide out in the training department because their skills are so lacking. Now Mr. Senator wants to put the hire/fire decisions in these guys hands?

The company choses their checkairman based on ass-kissing, being company kool-aid drinkers, etc. Not based on flying skills.

While I got through the training w/o any problems, it only firmed up my opinion that, a lot of the time, only the worst pilots are selected as trainers.

As the old adage goes... "those can't do, teach."