NTSB recommendation on failed checkrides

[tom1178]

I agree with you FN FAL that instructors should be required to have more experience (edit: i myself suffered from it), but my point is, how would all these airline pilot wannabe's build time if they can't instruct? I'll pull a number out of my arse and say 80% of time building is via instructing for the low-time pilot. There are only so much night-freight jobs that will hire you with 250 hours, don't ya think?

That's why it will never happen, in a perfect world instructor's would all be the most experienced pilots with 2,000 plus hours but it is the way it is for a reason. (although I don't know what the reason is) I haven't even been instructing for a year but I would personally say that I have gotten better at my job every month i fly. It used to bug the heck out of me my first few months of instructing, everytime i finished a flight all I could think about was how or what i could have done differently to better help my students....it still bothers me actually. All you can do is keep improving the product you are offering. I've sent 3 up for their ppl and they all passed their first time so I must be doing something right. It would make me nervous if their was a rule at my local FSDO like there is in SC but the rule is in place for a reason....you never really should sign somebody off until they are truly ready, I've failed one ride before and I was a little disappointed in my instructor because I failed an item that was in the PTS that we never went over but I took most of the blame myself. If a student fails a ride multiple times they may have realized early on in their training that their instructor wasn't very good but a lot of times students aren't going to stand up and blame their instructor for their faults because they'll feel that people will just assume they are using somebody but themselves as an excuse.

 

[Axel]

Let's take a poll, how many people here on the board who have CFI tickets, ever had a student brandish a pistol on them?

I have.

C-210 checkout. Rolling out from a full stop, guy pulls a .45 auto.Left me on the taxiway and disappeared with the plane towards theMexican border. Found the plane 3 weeks later crashed in the CA desertwith new paint and seeds/stems in the carpet.

Not fun, but coulda turned out much worse.

 

[HMR]

To tell you the truth, CFI's should have to have a minimum of 2,500 hours...

Good idea. However, I worked at a large flight school and the best instructors were all the guys and gals with 500-1500hrs. THE ABSOLUTE WORST guys were the ones with 2500hrs+. I've yet to meet a "senior" instructor at a flight school that doesn't have some social disorder that's kept him/her from advancing in their career.

C-210 checkout. Rolling out from a full stop, guy pulls a .45 auto.Left me on the taxiway and disappeared with the plane towards theMexican border.

I was going to come back. Why didn't you tell me you have to switch fuel tanks in the 210?

 

[VFR on Top]

Why aren't CFIs the most experienced teachers possible? Because nobody's willing to pay $80/hr for an instructor. The pilots willing to work for what CFIs are paid don't really have any other options when it comes to flying jobs. Too many people have whored themselves out flying traffic watch for free and whatnot.

 

[nosehair]

That's why it will never happen,

Maybe it will, finally. If the FAA implements this NTSB recommendation, along with the TSA's rules making individual CFI's have to "register" and be "accountable", I think we *may* be working towards a more structured school style.
Inexperienced 250 hour CFI's can indeed be good instructors under the proper SUPERVISION. No young, inexperienced instructor should be out there doin' it on his own. That's the problem. And even at some major flight schools - the new instructor does not get enough supervision and guidance.
"Here! Here's 13 students in various stages of disarray - fly 'em."

Of course it will be more costly. It will promote PROFESSIONALISIM.

 

[apcooper]

2 pilots go to a cocktail party and meet two different cute girls. One girl asks "what to you do for a living?" and guy #1 with 300 hrs says "I'm a pilot." Girl then says "wow, what kind of pilot" he responds "I'm a flight instructor" she says "wow you actually teach people to fly!" Meanwhile, guy #2 with 12,000 hrs, an ATP and a 747 type rating meets the other cutie and she askes "what to you do for a living?" He responds "I'm a pilot." She askes "Wow, what kind of pilot?" He says "I fly freight" She responds "Oh, OK, thats interesting" and then dissappears into the crowd never to be seen again!! How fu#ked up and crazy is that!!

 

[TonyC]

The other problem is that this information is intended to root out severe offenders at the employers discretion. I have heard some employers not hire a person based on the number of traffic tickets he has. Could you imagine what an employer would do with this information. It would turn the industry into a one-strike and you're out. Not cool.

If I'm not mistaken, this information is already available to the employer, and employers may be using it already. There is no information to be gained from this Notice of Diapproval that should not already be on the pilot's application under the question, "Have you ever failed a Checkride?" Remember, we've already discussed THAT question many times. If the applicant omits something that is found in the records check, that would constitute falsification and would be grounds for rejection (pre-hire) or termination (post-hire).

What the proposed rule would do is REQUIRE that the employer obtain any Notices of Disapproval for flight checks for certificates and ratings and to evaluate this information before making a decision about hiring. I think a Part 121 or 135 carrier would be foolish to not do so already. I would think the Insurance Carriers would demand it.


The scary part of this recommendation is the possibilty of establishing a limit on the number of flight checks that an indivual can fail. There are far too many variables in the process to establish a single number beyond which noone may go. One pilot may have had a particularly colored beginning from which he gained valuable lessons and maturity, and is now an outstanding pilot, but only one flight check, one bad day away from the end of his professional career. Another pilot may have been fortunate enough to slide by easy checkrides on his best days and has many checkrides to bust before he's canned. That doesn't make him more fit to hold the job. The two should be looked at individually by the potential employer, without the arbitrary constraint of a number.

 

[Lindy]

Arbitrary & Capricious

Tony C hit the IMPORTANTissue of the NTSB recommendation.

The FAA has been given a *recommendation* by the NTSB to deliver a number of failed checkrides that will prohibit a pilot candidate from being hired by a 14 CFR Part 121 and/or 135 Operator.

This is VERY SERIOUS!!

My question, will the FAA put a clock on the issue? For example, a candidate cannot be considered for employment if the applicant has failed [insert number] of checkrides in the last [insert number] of years. Or will it be once someone has failed X number of checkrides, then that person can never be employed by either a 121 or 135 Operator.

Should the FAA have the power to mandate this hiring practice to private companies? The FAA has the power to designate specific flight time requirements, training requirements, and medical requirements. It would NOT be a stretch to implement this information for failed checkrides and an applicant becoming "un-hireable."

This needs to be discussed.

 

[GogglesPisano]

This is scary stuff, alright. Two pilots apply for a job. One is an intern or someone with an "in" at the hiring dept and is low time. He's only taken 6 or 7 checkrides in his whole career. The other is a seasoned veteran who climbed the ladder the hard way and has 10,000 hours and 20 checkrides under his belt -- but he's failed two.

Any new system has to account for the laws of averages and how many tmes you've been exposed to the checkride process.

Let's not forget that a checkride can be a very subjective process (even though it's not designed to be that way.) And some airlines have a "reputation" for higher bust rates.

 

[nosehair]

This is scary stuff,
Let's not forget that a checkride can be a very subjective process (even though it's not designed to be that way.)

True. Another major "glitch" in our system, along with the newly minted instructors doing the teaching.

However, this may help to clean-up that whole area, too. If a checkride bust has the effect of ruining a career, then student/pilot applicants will demand (via the legal system) a more "objective" evaluation.

This can be done. Just like we need to revise our way of using brand-new instructors without supervision, we need to get rid of those old "do-it-my-way" DE's.