Well, might not be new but I don't see anyone discussing it here. How about the rules change so that if you fail a checkride you MUST take the whole ride over not just the parts you failed on. I have seen times where a pilot busted several rides then passed on the retake. But let's face it the pilot is laser focussing on one maybe two topics/manuevers. There is no "pressure cooker" of the event. People who cannot deal with the full pressure of an emergency might be weeded out by this approach to testing events. I'm not sure upping 121 requirements to ATP will suffice if the checkride they take can be done in parts and passed on. An emergency never asks your permission to happen. You're either ready to deal with stress or you are not. No one will be perfect in all events. But do others see this a possible way to improve the testing for certificates/ratings?
Discuss.
It goes against the grain of what they have tried to accomplish over the years. After the type, which is performed to a higher standard, future check rides are pass/fail, but at least at my airline, retrain any deficiencies. It is a proficiency check ride or train to proficiency.
Most of the retraining is performed on manuevers that usually are only performed once a year. There is no way to practice these on the line. There is nothing wrong with this program. However, what may be wrong at certain airlines is the amount of rechecks that any one pilot takes. It becomes his body of work, and most companies should have an objective standard that can be attained, and when it is not reached, a provision for remedial training follows. There should always be a cutoff point, as beyond a certain point, the company becomes liable. Many times, inadequate preparation is the issue, not ability. This is a profession and everything a pilot does is documented and should be motivation enough to put in the time to do it right the first time. Even then, one can still fall short. Fear is a motivator. I use it as my motivation to adequately prepare. Adequate preparation is the one thing I have control over. Adequated preparation is generally recognized easily by the IP. If you demonstrate adequate or greater knowledge of systems, limitations, procedures, and memory items, many times extra consideration is given on latitudes of simulator proficiency that a pilot only does once, or twice a year.
There is nothing wrong with the system-- at least the one at my company. However, I am quite sure there can be broad variances on each property, depending on the quality of the training department, trainers, and standards. It all depends on how much a company wants to spend to do the right thing by providing quality training. If things are done properly in hiring, and initial training, with some acceptable level of attrition for sub-standard performances, then no one should slip through the cracks past the first year.
The real issue is the FAA Standard that should be raised and enforced. My Company goes way beyond that standard. Most likely, many companies use it for their standard which provides less than optimum acceptable standards for Part 121 operation.
