New thought on testing for pilot certificates.

DiverDriver

Welcome to The Fall.
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Posts
446
Total Time
9,000
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.
 

flyboyike

Urban Legend/Rural Myth
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Posts
1,852
Total Time
5801
I agree, and while we're at it, let's only practice dual engine failures and complete hydraulic failures. After all, emergencies don't ask our permission.
 

JustaNumber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Posts
922
Total Time
5000
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.
Maybe for the initial proficiency check, but I'm not sure it's such a good idea on an ongoing basis. As you said, no one will be perfect in all events, and considering there may be upwards of 40-50 checkrides in your career where your entire career is on the line, I'm okay with an initial overall test to look for weaknesses, and then correcting any problem areas on an individual basis.

I'm still perplexed by the Colgan captain who pulled when he should have pushed. That is an instinct that all professional pilots have, and I can't see how he screwed it up. If he was truly deficient in this area, why wasn't it corrected on multiple checkride opportunities? Could it just be fatigue that caused him to become completely confused? I doubt that him redoing an entire checkride vs. just areas that he messed up would have changed anything, though. If he couldn't figure out stall recoveries, he should have been retrained on them, and that should have been the end of that. He either got it or he didn't. I just don't understand.
 

SpauldingSmails

Aboard the sloop.
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Posts
1,278
Total Time
>7000
I'm still perplexed by the Colgan captain who pulled when he should have pushed. That is an instinct that all professional pilots have...

I didn't get it either. He screwed up, and the FO made sure there was no chance to recover.
 

30West

NARF!
Joined
Feb 16, 2006
Posts
533
Total Time
@8000
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.

If someone aces the ride, but gets wound up on the last 200ft of the last appch at the very end, that person would have to go and do the entire thing over?
As a check airman and an exaimner, I for one am glad I have the option not to have to go back and repeat the entire ride over again. But keep in mind, it's always the examiner's discretion to start over from the beginning on a retake, not just the unsat task, if he or she feels the need.
If the applicant is clearly strong during a checkride, has good SA and in the case of the PIC a god command presence, then goes tits up on something and is unsat, if I will be the one rechecking then it's a waste of time to go back through the entire ride. In that case I will retest the unsat task only.
If I have an applicant that is giving me a so-so ride but meets the PTS, then finally gives up the ghost, I probably will recheck all tasks, as I most likely would if I was rechecking a candidate that had an unsat by a different examiner.
 

PBRstreetgang

Registered Abuser
Joined
Mar 4, 2002
Posts
3,241
Total Time
Total
I didn't get it either. He screwed up, and the FO made sure there was no chance to recover.
He had the pooch by the hindquarters, and the F/O did her job and held its head, viola Skrewing the pooch 101.
PBR
 

Speedtape

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Posts
1,973
Total Time
enough
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.
 

DoinTime

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
2,523
Total Time
6000+
I'm still perplexed by the Colgan captain who pulled when he should have pushed. That is an instinct that all professional pilots have, and I can't see how he screwed it up.
I've never flown the Dash 8 but in every large, turbine powered airplane I've ever trained in the stick response to the stall warning system at low altitude IS NOT to push forward on the yoke. These airplanes are not Ceasnas. Seeing is that you also fly the CRJ I would hope you would know what muscle group you use to do stall recoveries in the sim. After 20+ PCs in the CRJ its very clear to me how successfully do this maneuver and thats to hold that yoke back in your lap until the plane starts flying again.

The problem lies in that this captain was never trained to do ACTUAL stall recoveries. Only approach to stall recovery just like the FAA requires and just like what most pilots will ever see in any kind of testing or training. The two events are drastically different scenarios with drastically different recovery techniques. With the rapid rate of deceleration that big dirty t-props like the D8-400 are capable of the stall "warning" system does not give adequate warning to prevent yourself from getting into a full stall.
 

TheInsider

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Posts
119
Total Time
19550
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.
I think a re-evaluation of testing is needed. In that regard, I want to say that testing is really such a narrow window of opportunity to test an applicants skills, knowledge and abilities. I believe it all starts with training; proper training that is. I recommend everyone take a peek at the FAR's in regards to stalls: pilots must be trained to recover from stalls and receive instruction in stall "awareness". Very little, if nothing is said about how to avoid stalls in the first place. Remember, an airplane must be flown and directed to wherever it happens to end up. The engineers who design airplanes know this but for some reason we as pilots just don't get it.
 

Kream926

pimpin' aint easy
Joined
Feb 28, 2003
Posts
1,196
Total Time
1.21
The problem lies in that this captain was never trained to do ACTUAL stall recoveries. Only approach to stall recovery just like the FAA requires and just like what most pilots will ever see in any kind of testing or training.

well there is one kind of flying that i can think of that actual stalls and recoveries are made over and over and and over again day in day out. can anyone think what it is?
 

CX880

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Posts
2,861
Total Time
1898
I have a better idea. How about we require every candidate to pass an IQ test before sim. If they don't get anything above superior intelligence we require them to perform one steep turn, one single engine non precision, and one unusual attitude all while being blind folded along with the two most senior company check airman(the most pissed off lifers) yelling and screaming next to you about how much you suck. If that's not pressure DriverDriver, I don't know what is..
 
Last edited:

tomgoodman

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Posts
2,356
Total Time
20,000
Causing a flap

well there is one kind of flying that i can think of that actual stalls and recoveries are made over and over and and over again day in day out. can anyone think what it is?
That kind of flying is for the birds. :rolleyes:
 

Browntothebone

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2002
Posts
743
Total Time
-
I have a better idea. How about we require every candidate to pass an IQ test before sim. If they don't get anything above superior intelligence we require them to perform one steep turn, one single engine non precision, and one unusual attitude all while being blind folded along with the two most senior company check airman(the most pissed off lifers) yelling and screaming next to you about how much you suck. If that's not pressure DriverDriver, I don't know what is..

If you have a high IQ, you would be smart enough to never work for a commuter in the first place!
 

30West

NARF!
Joined
Feb 16, 2006
Posts
533
Total Time
@8000
well there is one kind of flying that i can think of that actual stalls and recoveries are made over and over and and over again day in day out. can anyone think what it is?
Banner towing!
 

HA25

Tokyo Tokyo!
Joined
Dec 16, 2001
Posts
3,642
Total Time
>1
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.

But there needs to be even more... We need more academics, especially relating to aerodynamics, fluids and other basic (repeat) basic engineering fundamentals. Short of requiring engineering degrees, there has to be some way to insure that people know that for example flaps area a LIFT devise primarily and not a DRAG device, as far too many pilot's I've run across seem to believe (or at least the way they fly seems to indicate).
 

TheInsider

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Posts
119
Total Time
19550
But there needs to be even more... We need more academics, especially relating to aerodynamics, fluids and other basic (repeat) basic engineering fundamentals. Short of requiring engineering degrees, there has to be some way to insure that people know that for example flaps area a LIFT devise primarily and not a DRAG device, as far too many pilot's I've run across seem to believe (or at least the way they fly seems to indicate).
I second that.
 
Top