Pilots in crashes had failed multiple tests

[seaav8tor]

Individuals who keep saying pay has nothing to do with performance.... are you really that naive?

2 Major issues: Capability and Experience

Highly capable individuals who have other options will not seek out this career. Fact: There is a huge correlation on capabilities and who will make themselves available for a career based on financial rewards. Fact: The lower the pay, the fewer takers for the job. Fact: The HR rep will have a smaller aptitude pool to select from.

It's not that low pay ATTRACTS low aptitude pilots. Low pay ATTRACTS no pilots. However, since the job has always had a glamour element no matter how low the pay someone will show up. That person if they have a professional attitude will do their best regardless of pay. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE! The problem is Homer Simpson has no business flying passengers in part 121 service. Some people are not cut out to do this work no matter how much they want it; How good their attitude; How much extra training they get; How many do-overs, second, third, or fourth attempts. We do not police ourselves.

The reason we find ourselves in this mess is we, the gatekeepers; CFIs, Examiners, Check Airmen, HR reps, Chief Pilots, etc have not been willing to look someone in the eye and tell them they are not cut out for this. It's hard to do and there are many different economic reasons it's avoided. The military does it and it's not a fun place to be.

The second issue is experience. As it is gained the pilot becomes more valuable in his/her own mind. If that value is not rewarded at some point down the road you see the experienced person leave the career and replaced by a less experienced person. The revolving door.

So now here we are.... attracting something less than the brightest and best society has to offer and very low experience levels. Since we did not fix it the government is going to do it for us.

I agree you might not like the solution they come up with.

 

[Polar742]

I agree with your first paragraph, but differ on the second. Once, maybe twice, but that's it. Just more training until you get through does not make someone safe. Sure, they did all the TASKS they were supposed to, within standards, but c'mon, the second time around there are no surprises anymore. No surprises means the person can fly be rote, but can they REALLY think on their feet? Do they have the ability to APPLY the knowledge? That's the difference between the first time through and subsequent, IMO. The real world is not a neat set of tasks like a checkride, and doesn't have the rules of a checkride (e.g., compound system failures, etc., are not off limits in the real world).

I agree with the once do over and MAYBE twice (as I had to redo some stuff once along time ago - and now that I actually looked for work outside the commuter I realize how limiting those pops will be to any other jobs I need.), but yes, that's it. If you need more than that to get a program done, then yes, there is an issue with YOU. Let's use my CFI bust as an example. I had taken 3 previous rides with the same examiner. Each time we used steep turns as clearing turns prior to the stall series, so I did just that. However, due to the fact I didn't say "these are going to be clearing turns", I got popped. Does that make me a bad pilot, or show bad judgement?

It's often said that a checkride is really a check on the instructional program. And that's a good point. You bring up "surprises", but lets face it, there are little to no "surprises" on a checkride. The training should be set up so there are no "surprises".

If there is a "surprise", then was it the individual or was the training lacking?

 

[seagull]

But how do you measure that? How do you determine whether or not someone can think on their feet and come up with a solution to a problem? Remember what Al Haynes said -- they put a bunch of other DC-10 crews into the sim, gave them the same conditions that he experienced, and despite having the benefit of knowing what Haynes did to keep that plane in the air, all of them turned the plane into a huge lawn dart.

I do agree with you that a history of continued failure does indicate a problem. To stretch the sports analogy further, if someone gives up a soft goal or two a season, that's one thing. But if he's doing it every other game, it's a problem.

Where you draw the line and say, this guy doesn't have it isn't something that's cut and dried. And that's the problem. The media is making it out to be like if you fail a ride, you suck as a pilot. That's simply not true.

Well, actually Haynes was lucky also. Having said that, the sim does not necessarily do the best job, I have been told by experimental test pilots that the airplane is a bit easier. The phugoid oscillations are a challenge in the sim and timing it right it out of your control. A lot of what happened with Hayne's was the luck of where he was in the phugoid when it got close to the ground.

One of the differences between civilian and military is that in the military you can't just come up with more $$ and keep retraining yourself until you pass. I would venture that those who are barely affording the training are not the problem. It's the ones with lots of cash that can just pay for more training with no real consequences who are.

 

[seagull]

I had taken 3 previous rides with the same examiner. Each time we used steep turns as clearing turns prior to the stall series, so I did just that. However, due to the fact I didn't say "these are going to be clearing turns", I got popped. Does that make me a bad pilot, or show bad judgement?

It's often said that a checkride is really a check on the instructional program. And that's a good point. You bring up "surprises", but lets face it, there are little to no "surprises" on a checkride. The training should be set up so there are no "surprises".

If there is a "surprise", then was it the individual or was the training lacking?

If that got you popped, someone should have reported that examiner. There are some "bad apples" out there.

I agree with your point on the training, and that is a factor that should be looked at. What was that particular instructor's track record? However, 3 failures at the primary level is a concern to me. One is not, and I can see two, but three?

 

[Polar742]

If that got you popped, someone should have reported that examiner. There are some "bad apples" out there.

I agree with your point on the training, and that is a factor that should be looked at. What was that particular instructor's track record? However, 3 failures at the primary level is a concern to me. One is not, and I can see two, but three?

Let me clarify....I didn't pop that ride 3 times. I popped several rides one time, for minor issues like I described. If you want the complete list, I'll tell you. It's not the examiner's fault I didn't complete the task correctly, or maybe I was in a "grey" area in his mind and that set me over the line. I'll never know.

Each time was a subsequent retrain-retest-pass second try show. All done within a "normal" programmed set of hours, not a 100 hr PPL show or anything.

Again, a flawless record for the last 10 years at the 121 level, a handful of types, checkpilot letter. None of it will ever prove to some that I'm not a "marginal" pilot and that's fine. I'll never be eligible for a job at a shop like yours due to this, I'm sure, and that's the way the ball bounces. No sour milk on my part.

I'm using myself as an example, and again, the record is public, so I have no bones about that.

What I am saying is say you have someone who goes way beyond the "average" hours to attain a certificate or rating and never fail at the primary level, or they take "stage checks" never to have a salmon slip, so theoretically no failures on the primary level. How does that compare to a retake on a single task? Better, worse, or the same?

 

[AirmetTango]

The reason we find ourselves in this mess is we, the gatekeepers; CFIs, Examiners, Check Airmen, HR reps, Chief Pilots, etc <b>have not been willing to look someone in the eye and tell them they are not cut out for this</b>. It's hard to do and there are many different economic reasons it's avoided. The military does it and it's not a fun place to be.

Excellent post, seaav8tor, IMHO. And without question, this is the major flaw in civilian flight training. I can't count the number of times that I've seen marginal or even poor students pushed through programs because no one has the guts to tell the guy he isn't cut out for a piloting career, or it's assumed that someone else down the road will do the dirty work.

What I am saying is say you have someone who goes way beyond the "average" hours to attain a certificate or rating and never fail at the primary level, or they take "stage checks" never to have a salmon slip, so theoretically no failures on the primary level. How does that compare to a retake on a single task? Better, worse, or the same?

Polar, I've found that I agree with everything you've written on this thread so far, and I think you've really hit the nail on the head with this point. This is exactly why failures at the "primary" level are unreliable indicators of a pilot's aptitude at the professional level. Let's say Student A from a larger school fails multiple "Final Stage Checks", but passes all checkrides on the first effort. Student B from a small school has an instructor that says "go ahead and give the checkride a try, I think you're ready", so ends up with a couple busts on his record, but gets all his ratings in fewer hours than Student A. Who's the better pilot? Who knows....there isn't nearly enough information to go on.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

Polar, I've found that I agree with everything you've written on this thread so far, and I think you've really hit the nail on the head with this point. This is exactly why failures at the "primary" level are unreliable indicators of a pilot's aptitude at the professional level. Let's say Student A from a larger school fails multiple "Final Stage Checks", but passes all checkrides on the first effort. Student B from a small school has an instructor that says "go ahead and give the checkride a try, I think you're ready", so ends up with a couple busts on his record, but gets all his ratings in fewer hours than Student A. Who's the better pilot? Who knows....there isn't nearly enough information to go on.

I agree. Student A and Student B I believe are on equal footing until they work through an identical training program, such as Part 135 or Part 121 initial. It is there that any differences or deficiencies in training should theoretically show up.

I got my private I believe, in 78 hours. I had a total of 85 or so, but I did about 5 or 6 discovery flights prior to actually beginning training (including ERAU Flight Camp). That was the only course I "exceeded" the alotted hours. All the other courses were spot on or less... (although I love how my school made money by making the pvt-me a 20 hour course!)

And, all things being equal at a training level, students who have been taught well, but are potentially slower learners, know their "drawbacks" and compensate with extra book time or GFS time on their own so that they can keep pace.

 

[Kestrel452]

There is a connection. Lower pay will attract lower caliber employees.

:yeahthat:

there isn't any better explanation for why the pay needs to go up. I cannot see how you can disagree with that statement. Intelligent people want the pay they deserve, and if flying doesn't offer that then they will stop coming in.

 

[MFT1Air]

:yeahthat:

there isn't any better explanation for why the pay needs to go up. I cannot see how you can disagree with that statement. Intelligent people want the pay they deserve, and if flying doesn't offer that then they will stop coming in.

We're in a recession; an available job will attractive any and everyone. What part of that economic equation have you missed?

People want to work; people want to pay their bills and feed their families. Don't take a low paying job. Sure starve. That really makes sense.

 

[poser765]

Just a small point when dealing with primary training.

Does anyone care how many times the knowledge test is failed? I've noticed a different attitude when it comes to the written. Kind of a who cares just take it till you pass it mind set. Does failing a written make you a bad pilot?

 

[Kestrel452]

We're in a recession; an available job will attractive any and everyone. What part of that economic equation have you missed?

People want to work; people want to pay their bills and feed their families. Don't take a low paying job. Sure starve. That really makes sense.

What you are saying does not make sense, and i do not appreciate the condescending attitude. I am not talking about people who are already pilots, I am talking about high school and college students trying to decide their life path. A gifted student is not going to pick a career that pays low wages when they can easily choose another career option that is actually lucrative.

How/why would someone invest the amount of money it takes to become a pilot if they are already in financial trouble? Would trying to become a pilot in the midst of a recession to make more money if you are struggling to pay the bills be a smart idea at all? Not at all.

If you are already a pilot and find a job opening, then go for it. But no one is going to train for the job if they feel it isn't at their personal standards or in fiscal trouble because it just costs way too much to do it as it is.

Besides, even current pilots are trying to leave the industry so that in effect puts a gigantic hole in your "pay will not affect the caliber of people becoming pilots" argument.

 

[MFT1Air]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by wheelsup
There is a connection. Lower pay will attract lower caliber employees.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
:yeahthat:

there isn't any better explanation for why the pay needs to go up. I cannot see how you can disagree with that statement. Intelligent people want the pay they deserve, and if flying doesn't offer that then they will stop coming in.

. . .and don't get me wrong, but I still believe everyone needs to think twice about the inaccuracy of that statement. Specifically, I've seen in industries outside of aviation (which I believe others haven't even seriously considered.), the statement doesn't even accurately represent all the intangibles of selecting employment.

Play the inverse word game hypothesis:

If lower pay will attract lower caliber employees, then higher pay (will) MUST attract higher caliber employees?

I'll remember that when a headhunter submits resumes to HR for management level positions. Offer more money and I'll definitely attract higher caliber employees. Tell a crop duster employer he'll receive a higher caliber pilot if he offers more money. The lower caliber employees won't bother to apply.

 

[5hrsit]

Just have to remember (as a CFI), that the number of hours you have logged does not necessaraly relate to your abilities. I have seem many people who are just autopilot engagers and disengagers.

 

[seaav8tor]

. . .and don't get me wrong, but I still believe everyone needs to think twice about the inaccuracy of that statement. Specifically, I've seen in industries outside of aviation (which I believe others haven't even seriously considered.), the statement doesn't even accurately represent all the intangibles of selecting employment.


MFT1Air:

If at some point in the future you need a Rolls or Lamborghini painted I suggest you take it to Macco for the $199 whole car paint job special.

"Although our car painters earn $8 per hour they are fully trained to the same standards as a specialty show car painters. Level of experience does not matter. Bring your Rolls or Lamborghini in for our full car paint job special of only $199; You will love the look".

This way by looking at the paint job every day you will no longer have any trouble grasping the concept "You get what you pay for". :bandit:

 

[MFT1Air]

. . .and don't get me wrong, but I still believe everyone needs to think twice about the inaccuracy of that statement. Specifically, I've seen in industries outside of aviation (which I believe others haven't even seriously considered.), the statement doesn't even accurately represent all the intangibles of selecting employment.


MFT1Air:

If at some point in the future you need a Rolls or Lamborghini painted I suggest you take it to Macco for the $199 whole car paint job special.

"Although our car painters earn $8 per hour they are fully trained to the same standards as a specialty show car painters. Level of experience does not matter. Bring your Rolls or Lamborghini in for our full car paint job special of only $199; You will love the look".

This way by looking at the paint job every day you will no longer have any trouble grasping the concept "You get what you pay for". :bandit:

The pictures below depict taxicabs. To go from point A to point B, are you going to care which mode of transportation is going to get you there?

You gonna pay more for the first two vice the third?

Everything's relative.

 

[MFT1Air]

Oh! Let me elaborate further. Level of experience does matter. The $8 an hour painter? How many cars hours spent performing your profession? $25 an hour painter? The same question. Person with the most "experience" gets the paint job.

Mistakes on cars? How many car paintings have you screwed up in your career? OK, when, how badly, and what were the circumstances surrounding those mistakes?

Maybe I could go to China where most of the products imported to America come. . .and maybe I can export my aviation experience to China and fly a 737. Nice pay they'll provide to me as a right seater although I'll have very little experience. . .or would I be more content to fly with an experienced but low paid right seater?

So, what is it really about? The experience or the pay given the perception if I'm not making much money, I must be of low caliber?

Let's see here. . .I'm degreed in management; my peers are ABETs. I've more experience than they have yet, because of my degree, I probably make $15k - $25k less than my less experienced engineer "peers." Yet, I took the job. As it relates to quality of work, of 25 in my group, I'm in the top 4. Hmmm, ok - so I'm low caliber. Fine. If that's your thought process, stick with it. That's your perspective. It won't change mine.

 

[Tristan]

I like to think of running a good cockpit as mistake management. We all make mistakes when we fly. The biggest thing is to realize that a mistake is made and correct for it, before it becomes an issue.

:yeahthat:

You write wise words Polar, I even made it my signature I liked it that much.

 

[granlistillo]

Couple of comments on the thread.

1) I don't think the issue is how many checkrides were failed in the lifetime of a pilot, but when. I would be more concerned about a guy that fails two recurrent checkrides in two years, than a guy that failed every initial.

2) Checkrides are subjective. I have never failed a checkride, but I made mistakes on every one, any of which could have led to a pink slip by the letter of the law. Maybe some guys just don't check as well? Luck of the draw vis a vis examiners?

3) This whole kibbitzing thing about the system from people who know nothing of the system is not helpful (talking about the press). Running off chasing red herrings like ""did he fail his PPL checkride?", instead of the horrible conditions and antiquated FARs that permeate this industry.

4) Beware the law of unintended consequences with the "fix". If it ever becomes one or two strikes and your out, then maybe there will be fewer failures. An examiner will have to think to himself "was he that bad?, so bad I will ruin his career?" I've noticed from my time in the military and business that any "zero defect" mentality usually results in a bunch of whitewashing, screwed up situations and just good old fashioned BS. When you start saying there is no problem, then you just lost the chance to fix it.

 

[Blackhawk]

A few meandering thoughts.
Pilots went into this industry knowing the pay scales. Now that they are there they are surprised and bitching about it? Yeah, I know. They were told 6 months to captain two years to a major. I'm sorry they actually believed it. Anyone who actually has studied this industry over time (like going back to the 1930s), knows that it changes.
It comes down to supply and demand. When the regionals were hurting for pilots (only a few years ago), those that paid well and treated the pilots well were still having problems getting qualified applicants as their upgrade times were slower. Many airlines were offering finders fees to employees who recommended a qualified pilot applicant. The golden magic ring was quick upgrade time and all the applicants seem to chase the airline with the fastest one, no matter how poor their pay scale or work rules. After all, who cares about a pay scales when you will only be at the airline for a couple of years? The airline is based in a high cost of living to boot? Hey, I can suck it up for two years. Crummy work rules? The same. Oops. I remember one captain telling me that his airline payed 25 cents more an hour for captain- of course they were based in a very high cost area so any increase in pay went toward taxes, rent, gas, parking etc. My net came out way ahead.
So what's the point? You knew what you were getting into. If you didn't shame on you. Quit asking the government to make the bed you slept in. Be the professional pilot you are paid to be or go do something else. You may not like the pay, but again you knew what it was when you signed up, and I'm sure you did not say in your interview, "I will only act as a professional if I make captain in two years or my pay goes up accordingly or if I make it to the majors." If the demand of pilots starts to dry up because the pay and work rules suck, guess what will happen? The wages will go up and conditions will improve.

 

[SmitteyB]

Individuals who keep saying pay has nothing to do with performance.... are you really that naive?

2 Major issues: Capability and Experience

Highly capable individuals who have other options will not seek out this career. Fact: There is a huge correlation on capabilities and who will make themselves available for a career based on financial rewards. Fact: The lower the pay, the fewer takers for the job. Fact: The HR rep will have a smaller aptitude pool to select from.

It's not that low pay ATTRACTS low aptitude pilots. Low pay ATTRACTS no pilots. However, since the job has always had a glamour element no matter how low the pay someone will show up. That person if they have a professional attitude will do their best regardless of pay. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE! The problem is Homer Simpson has no business flying passengers in part 121 service. Some people are not cut out to do this work no matter how much they want it; How good their attitude; How much extra training they get; How many do-overs, second, third, or fourth attempts. We do not police ourselves.

The reason we find ourselves in this mess is we, the gatekeepers; CFIs, Examiners, Check Airmen, HR reps, Chief Pilots, etc have not been willing to look someone in the eye and tell them they are not cut out for this. It's hard to do and there are many different economic reasons it's avoided. The military does it and it's not a fun place to be.

The second issue is experience. As it is gained the pilot becomes more valuable in his/her own mind. If that value is not rewarded at some point down the road you see the experienced person leave the career and replaced by a less experienced person. The revolving door.

So now here we are.... attracting something less than the brightest and best society has to offer and very low experience levels. Since we did not fix it the government is going to do it for us.

I agree you might not like the solution they come up with.

While in general I agree with you, the bad pilots aren't turned away because they come in with MONEY! I don't necessarily believe that military pilots have more natural ability, just that MONEY is endless and there is no stopping when someone runs out of money or the HOBBS ticks over to 1.0 hours. Personally, I know without a fact that I would succeed in military flight training.

On a personal note- your response to EVERY single news story regarding Colgan 3407 by saying "You don't get a Sully for a Marvin price" is downright nauseating. How dare you say that?!

If it had been Colgan 3407 that glided into the water, Capt. Renslow would have had the same experience and the same training record. And if it was 1549 who crashed in Buffalo it would have been an experienced Military pilot.

Colgan 3407 had nothing to do with experience, in my opinion. There were no questionable PIC decisions. Did anyone else notice that during the ENTIRE approach sequence that cockpit was infact STERILE? They configured that airplane according to profile. Personally I just think they were tired, and the shaker and pusher startled them. When Renslow realized what was going on, the airplane was already out of control.

RIP Colgan 3407