LowlyPropCapt
PBR For Life, and Beyond!
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 1,256
Thanks for the compliment. If your family ever has a burning desire to go to LGA and experience some of the oldest Dash 8's in the biz, welcome aboard!
All of this training talk has had me thinking a bit... Someone here mentioned Trans States. As a former Waterskier myself, I can attest to the poor quality and mean spirit of their training staff (at least in the late '90s). I failed my initial new hire ATR checkout there... The instructor "faked" putting the gear down to when I called for it. When I caught it, he put them down. Now the landing checks got completed at DA +950 feet instead of the FOM mandated DA +1000 feet. I elected to continue, being single engine and all and I figured we were close enough to profile to make it safe. He busted me. Legit? Sure, I was off profile. Realistic? No. Mean spirited? Yes, especially the part where he told me he was glad I busted so he could go home early. I went out the next day, did one SE ILS and off to the line I went. Not really a positive learning experience, I must say. This is just my personal anecdote. I am sure other regional guy have similar horror stories.
At any rate, I got through it. I never had failed a ride before that point, and have never failed one in the nearly 10 years since. So obviously, one checkride bust cannot be indicative of future performance.
That begs the question: How would one measure the skill of a pilot over a career spent flying in such a way as to make analysis accurate and fair to all involved? How could this be done transparently, encouraging learning while protecting the flying public?
All of the checkrides we take outside of the airlines (and at airlines without AQP) are pass/fail. In analyzing the records, we see only the final grade, but necessarily the reason for that grade. At many airlines now we have AQP. AQP (when correctly administered) is a marvel of data collection. Each task is graded on a number scale and is data collected for two reasons: First, to measure the performance of the pilot over time and second, to identify areas of corporate weakness so that future training events can be focused on problem areas.
My thought is this: Change the way we keep records across the industry. If you see a record of failures, you can then go back and determine the reason for those failures. If the applicant has a history of failing the same sorts of tasks then you probably don't want to employ that individual. Every checkride should be treated as a data collection tool that can then be studied to determine pilot proficiency and industry effectiveness at managing the threats posed by that particular task.
Basically... Without a robust system of data collection, any attempt to use checkride history as a guide to hiring is doomed to be a weak half measure.
