Regional airline crashes & failed checkrides

[SLUF4]

I'm sure there will be a push within the gov't to get rid of those who fail multiple checkrides, but do you really think the union will go for it? I've never failed a checkride, but I do understand I'm just a screwup away from failing one. I just had a LOFT on the midnight-0400 sim session-do they really expect me to be at my best for that when my body is used to being asleep then from working a normal schedule? I'm not sure if we are doing PC's at that time or not, but I could see complications from that. I think it should be a case by case basis and not necessarily a limit that is arbitrarily set. Obviously if a guy fails 10 or 20 checkrides he shouldn't be flying around. What I'm saying is, what if a guy failed 2 checkrides when he was 17 and in flight school and has a spotless career for 40 years after that? Then he comes in and fails a PC one night. Should he be canned? That's 3 strikes.

 

[QOL_is_great:)]

Docs win when killing

There are 12,000 deaths per year due to unnecessary surgery

There are 7000 deaths per year due to medication errors in hospitals

Another 20,000 individuals die each year due to other errors in hospitals

Still another 80,0000 die each year due to infections in hospitals

And (inside and outside of hospitals combined), 106,000 individuals die each year due to negative effects of drugs.

Seems docs kill their share of people per year as do pilots. It's only makes news when we do it since we do it in big numbers.

 

[DTWFO]

I'm down for that too.. I mean we've all taken enough checkrides to know that no checkride ever goes perfectly... and that most (if not all) check airman use a more common sense method when evaluating whether a person should pass or fail. Most I've spoken to say something to the effect "I ask myself if I'd put my own family on their airplane at their level of proficiency, and if the answer is no then they fail".. I've seen many a check airman pretend to drop their pencil when a guy temporarily deviated on a ILS or maybe in a steep turn but recovered quickly and safely and had a more or less good ride.. AND, I've seen on a few occasions a check airman give a guy one or two chances to try to recover what should already have been a failed ride, but the guy was a lost cause and would fail.. So in the end, a failed ride is rarely (but I'm sure not always) a case of a one time minor deviation from ATP standards, but usually a sign of a poorly prepared pilot or a poor pilot to begin with./QUOTE]

This is not always the case. When you work for an airline such as Pinnacle, your job is on the line every time you go down for your PC. And even though I haven't failed a 121 PC in 7 years, that doesn't mean that it won't EVER happen. The only way you could mandate this is to have the FAA do EVERY airline's PC's for them and set a common set of standards to meet. The way it is now (at my airline) you roll the dice every time as to who administers your PC. I don't buy the premise that people don't bust PC's at the majors as much because they've been "weeded" out. More like they are given better training and opportunity to show how they can handle situations....not one chance and UNSAT. Some airlines allow a warm up session and then the PC. Here, it's get in the box at 5am and you better not make one minor error or you're fired.

 

[jmreii]

I'm down for that too.. I mean we've all taken enough checkrides to know that no checkride ever goes perfectly... and that most (if not all) check airman use a more common sense method when evaluating whether a person should pass or fail. Most I've spoken to say something to the effect "I ask myself if I'd put my own family on their airplane at their level of proficiency, and if the answer is no then they fail".. I've seen many a check airman pretend to drop their pencil when a guy temporarily deviated on a ILS or maybe in a steep turn but recovered quickly and safely and had a more or less good ride.. AND, I've seen on a few occasions a check airman give a guy one or two chances to try to recover what should already have been a failed ride, but the guy was a lost cause and would fail.. So in the end, a failed ride is rarely (but I'm sure not always) a case of a one time minor deviation from ATP standards, but usually a sign of a poorly prepared pilot or a poor pilot to begin with./QUOTE]

This is not always the case. When you work for an airline such as Pinnacle, your job is on the line every time you go down for your PC. And even though I haven't failed a 121 PC in 7 years, that doesn't mean that it won't EVER happen. The only way you could mandate this is to have the FAA do EVERY airline's PC's for them and set a common set of standards to meet. The way it is now (at my airline) you roll the dice every time as to who administers your PC. I don't buy the premise that people don't bust PC's at the majors as much because they've been "weeded" out. More like they are given better training and opportunity to show how they can handle situations....not one chance and UNSAT. Some airlines allow a warm up session and then the PC. Here, it's get in the box at 5am and you better not make one minor error or you're fired.

You are right they do bust their PC's sometimes and recieve additional training and another checkride with another check airman. I have been away from the regionals for 10 years, and the regional company I worked for was a sh#T bag operation like many of the operators are right now. The major carriers put a little more time and money into candidate's training than your typical regional, however your typical candidate has better experience than the candidate going to a regional. The major airline pilots also have a union for that dipstick check airman that you may run across. The sh#t bag operation I work for would allow a pilot to get another check airman for a PC check.

The bottom line is some pilots need to spend more time on trying to find out what type of employer this company will be instead of what type of airplane they are flying so they won't cry about it later.

I have had friends come out of the military and tell me there is no way they would fly for some of these sh#t bag operators. They would prefer not to fly.

 

[Nindiri]

The traditional checkride is a relic of the past that needs to be retired along with NDBs and whizwheels. It teaches nothing and simply takes a snapshot of a pilot at one specific moment in time; sometimes it's a good day, sometimes a bad day. Roll the dice and see what happens.

Some form of AQP is the way to go. With AQP, every checkride is now a learning event that improves pilot knowledge and skills. Deficiencies and weaknesses are now identified and corrected, and trends among the entire pilot group are detected and used to further enhance training.

hehe :nuts: I sound like an AQP salesman.

 

[WayBack]

I have had friends come out of the military and tell me there is no way they would fly for some of these sh#t bag operators. They would prefer not to fly.

That's not saying much. When fresh out of the Military, many of those guys seem nervous to fly alone.

 

[onewithwings]

I have also seen check airman going through the same things fail guys just so they can. So I don' think a three strikes policy is worth it. Possibly three failures in x amount of time warrants a 709 ride. However, once you pass the 709 your strike count should go back to zero.

I have seen that as well. Having done a short stint in pilot records early in my aviation career, I overheard a check airman brag about failing a young F/O because he didn't think he would "fit in" with the pilot group. This F/O went through hell to make it through his check rides having failed 2 out of three due to spiteful check airman. When he requested another check airman, he passed with flying colors. It was all politics. No airline is without politics.

 

[GogglesPisano]

Checkrides, especially at the regional and ACMI level, are extremely subjective. They are very much based on the whim of the examiner. This is due to the size of the company and the ability to build fiefdoms. Anyone who worked at ACA in the 98-04 timeframe, when there was a 50% bust rate in the CRJ program because of a couple of bad apples in the training department -- can attest to this. ALPA didn't do much to nip it in the bud, either.

Until they are administered by a computer, they will never be completely objective.

The whole checkride issue is a red herring the press can easily latch onto and run with, until the next pregnant woman goes missing.

 

[HA25]

Checkrides, especially at the regional and ACMI level, are extremely subjective. They are very much based on the whim of the examiner. This is due to the size of the company and the ability to build fiefdoms. Anyone who worked at ACA in the 98-04 timeframe, when there was a 50% bust rate in the CRJ program because of a couple of bad apples in the training department -- can attest to this. ALPA didn't do much to nip it in the bud, either.

I sort of agree with this, but that doesn't mean we can't make an attempt to make them more "objective" .. after all, they're done in $20M computerized sims... surely we can determine some types of perameters of safety and hard wire that into a printer output.

With that said, I was doing CRJ training at CAE in Montreal back in '97 and recall the ACA types up there, they bordered on unprofessional... the failure of the FAA is clearly evidenced in this, and I am shocked no class-action lawsuits were filed. I did my MD11 type rating with a former ACA lifer who had failed something like 4 checks in the CRJ... he wired the MD, and I could tell his flying skills were beyond question.. Therefore the FAA should have been suspicious when that many "otherwise" decent pilots were failing.

But again, don't accept a bunch of ill-fit pilots who do legitimately fail due to lack of skill, mastery, or judgement to remain in my profession because we have a currently broken system to check. Fix it.

With that all said, I don't know which ACMI you worked for, but Gemini's training department was more or less beyond politics when I was there and I especially have the highest regards for their last director of standards and MD11 checkairman prior to the shutdown. Maybe other ACMI's had these issues, but GAC didn't. What GAC did with a weak pilot was create a "PFO" ... if you failed two checkrides in your current type.. you were likely a Professional FO on that type for quite some time...

 

[sunlitpath]

Good heavens, a couple of guys crash a plane and the rest of us have to live with a microscope up our rear ends. The current system works fine. Sh-t happens. leave us alone...