Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
Silly hacker, don't you know that all pilots are created equal?
Except 121 pilots who are clearly a cut above the rest.
1500 rule in possible jeopardy
- Thread starter Maximilian_Jenius
- Start date
Except 121 pilots who are clearly a cut above the rest.
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
Big difference between those that try to be an "aviator" and those that are ok with just being a pretty damn good pilot.
I know what I try to be... and it doesn't start with the letter A.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
That's fine if that's what you aspire to do. I think the problem arises when people try to assign some sort of personal self-worth or personal merit to either of those.
But, regardless, there is an objective measure of skill, and we do not all perform the same against that objective standard. Nark's point was that many pilots haven't needed to perform against a standard which they are not capable of achieving, and thus they don't know how objectively capable they really are.
I have been fortunate in my career to have had my piloting performance challenged to the point of failure numerous times. I know exactly where my personal skill and aptitude limits are...and that there are other pilots out there that can perform at a higher level than my point of failure.
I don't feel like less of a person because there are pilots that are better than I am at aviation. I am, however, always trying to improve as a matter of professional excellence and personal pride.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
In my experience, at three airlines, four type rating courses, six training cycles, one Check Airman letter, and countless phone calls from pilots having issues in training, while there are some pilots who don't give a rats ass on how well they do, I would say 99% pilots care deeply about how well they do. Only one or two times has it come down to attitude where someone genuinely doesn't care how they are doing and I have seen them washed out. Where do you come up with your statement of claim that a lot are not interested in their airmanship?
Yes we don't measure in grades, usually it is a pass fail, but if you peel back some onion layers the fact we don't measure in grades show how we have evolved. The bottom line is measuring one's airmanship is a HORRIFIC practice and really shows little. Does it really matter if you as an individual are graded if you can handle a V1 cut properly, but are then a CRM nightmare?
In an AQP LOE, putting two pilots together, who most likely have never flown together, have (most likely) never met before they meet in the briefing room, and then giving them some emergency situation to deal with in a checking environment is a evolved and excellent indicator of the individual's ability to manage the emergency and threat. Yes, the crew may make some mistakes, but you learn from your mistakes. It is extremely easy to do well on a V1 cut in the sim as an individual. Handling an emergency as a crew while you are being evaluated is much harder.
I would say that it is an attack to thumb your nose at 'a lot' of pilots when in my experience 99% are professional and want to excel at the task at hand. Not sure how it as at the place you are at now or the Air Force though.
Yes.
I want to reiterate we as an industry has evolved past individual airmanship grades to evaluations on how we do in a crew environment under a high stress situation. 99% of us want to do extremely well.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Is every V1 cut the same? is every emergency situation the same? How can you grade to an objective standards if the situation is usually subjective? I may handle an emergency situation different than you would. Does that make me wrong and you right?
Do we want to 'break' someone to failure or do we want to train to success?
99% of the folks I have run across also want to improve as a matter of professional excellence and personal pride. As I said, not sure what you have been exposed to.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
The funny part, Mark, is that you've proven my point in your first post. Your entire post is one, big example of pilots not wanting to know objective measurement of their piloting skill. You said it yourself, that "measuring one's airmanship is a HORRIFIC practice", and then go on to explain all of the ways that the airlines train and evaluate around it. You state that as if it is undisputed fact, rather than simply your opinion on the matter.
I don't agree that measurement of individual merit is "horrific". I believe quite the opposite, that measurement of individual merit is crucial to knowing one's individual professional deficiencies. Only when you know your personal limits can you personally try to improve on them. One must be individually capable as an airman before they can be an effective member of a team. And yes, training to the point of failure rather than to the point of adequacy is how you find your limits. If you don't set the bar high, you don't know how high you can jump.
I would think that you, of all people, with your history in NCAA sports, would understand that concept. If one member of the team isn't individually competent, the team can make up for that weak point, but it doesn't advance the capability of the team or ensure there is a solid foundation for that team's performance. By the same token, my guess is that your team also did not set an "acceptable" level of performance and then practice weekly only just hard enough to achieve it.
If the airlines don't feel it is necessary to measure individual merit, and rather want to train and evaluate using all of the techniques you mention, I don't have an objection to that, and that's not my point anyway.
Sure, most airline pilots want to be really good at their job -- I completely agree with your statements on that. Pretty much everyone I know in the airline industry is a proud professional. Unfortunately, that is not an analog to wanting to be objectively highly skilled as an aviator. The mistake, in my opinion, is in the belief that that the skills required to succeed in the airlines are the outermost limits of the continuum of airmanship and skill. Ergo, pilots believing that passing training and successfully operating in the 121 environment is some sort of validation of being at the peak level of airmanship. The (false) belief that success in 121 training and operations is the end-all, be-all of aviation capability.
It isn't.
And -- here's the shocker -- neither is my previous career, either. I'm not claiming some kind of skill high ground here. I am, however, saying that there is a much larger world of aviation achievement out there other than 121 airline operations, and the "objective" measure goes out to those levels and beyond.
I don't agree that measurement of individual merit is "horrific". I believe quite the opposite, that measurement of individual merit is crucial to knowing one's individual professional deficiencies. Only when you know your personal limits can you personally try to improve on them. One must be individually capable as an airman before they can be an effective member of a team. And yes, training to the point of failure rather than to the point of adequacy is how you find your limits. If you don't set the bar high, you don't know how high you can jump.
I would think that you, of all people, with your history in NCAA sports, would understand that concept. If one member of the team isn't individually competent, the team can make up for that weak point, but it doesn't advance the capability of the team or ensure there is a solid foundation for that team's performance. By the same token, my guess is that your team also did not set an "acceptable" level of performance and then practice weekly only just hard enough to achieve it.
If the airlines don't feel it is necessary to measure individual merit, and rather want to train and evaluate using all of the techniques you mention, I don't have an objection to that, and that's not my point anyway.
Sure, most airline pilots want to be really good at their job -- I completely agree with your statements on that. Pretty much everyone I know in the airline industry is a proud professional. Unfortunately, that is not an analog to wanting to be objectively highly skilled as an aviator. The mistake, in my opinion, is in the belief that that the skills required to succeed in the airlines are the outermost limits of the continuum of airmanship and skill. Ergo, pilots believing that passing training and successfully operating in the 121 environment is some sort of validation of being at the peak level of airmanship. The (false) belief that success in 121 training and operations is the end-all, be-all of aviation capability.
It isn't.
And -- here's the shocker -- neither is my previous career, either. I'm not claiming some kind of skill high ground here. I am, however, saying that there is a much larger world of aviation achievement out there other than 121 airline operations, and the "objective" measure goes out to those levels and beyond.
Kingairer
'Tiger Team' Member
(Since we are in political season). How would you suggest making these changes. In your world, how would 121 training be different than it is today?
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
Not being tested to your limits (discovering your aptitude) and not caring about your skills are not the same thing.
Obviously I'm not suggesting that we start pushing all pilots to their limits in 121 training, but it is true that the many pilots in the airline world don't know the limits of their abilities. Is that a bad thing? I dunno. Our jobs are designed so that, in theory, we never get to the hairy edge of the envelope.
We train to the lowest common denominator. Some would argue the bar needs to be raised a bit, and I might agree. At least at my shop, where I was also a check airman until recently, the bar is not very high.
Obviously I'm not suggesting that we start pushing all pilots to their limits in 121 training, but it is true that the many pilots in the airline world don't know the limits of their abilities. Is that a bad thing? I dunno. Our jobs are designed so that, in theory, we never get to the hairy edge of the envelope.
We train to the lowest common denominator. Some would argue the bar needs to be raised a bit, and I might agree. At least at my shop, where I was also a check airman until recently, the bar is not very high.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
The reality is, there is no financial, governmental, or safety motivation for making such changes. Thus, any discussion of it would simply be intellectual masturbation.
Either way, it isn't an airline's responsibility to ensure its pilots are the best they can be -- it is each pilot's own decision how ready and competent they really want to be.
Personally, I want to be "Bob Hoover" or "Al Haynes" or "Chesley Sullenberger" competent and experienced when the black swan event strikes my aircraft. Those gents didn't simply rely on an employer to ensure their competence, knowledge, or readiness.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
How do you grade objectiveness? You ignored my point that some pilots can do a perfect V1 cut but be a nightmare CRM wise getting the plane back on the ground.
Factually speaking most airlines are moving towards AQP programs. Data is gathered so you are trained on what is actually happening on the line not on objectives. If AQP is so bad why are airlines moving towards it? BTW, you usually are graded as an individual in an AQP program to measure progress.
It turns out that the best player I played with (he was Captain of a Super Bowl winning team) was a walk on player in college. He eventually got a scholarship and was a decent player in college, but not fantastic. He barely got a pro contract as an Undrafted Free Agent, but he was given one mainly to fill a very specialized role as a special teams player. This guy had a fantastic attitude though, he really blossomed, and was starting line backer for a Super Bowl team.
Point is, as an individual, yes, he met the standard of being OK, but he never failed as a player. He kept playing up to others to get better. Point is this guy's attitude made him get better. He didn't have the most natural talent or size, but he worked his ass off to get better. He wasn't afraid of failing as it wasn't even an option for him. He just wanted to keep getting better. You can't measure that.
If/when poo hits the fan, I would expect others to step it up and accomplish the task at hand. Not fail.
Don't thumb your nose at what is being done with 121 environment. Take a look at the 121 safety statistics, compared that with the rest of aviation disciplines. A lot is being done right. Yes, moreso than other operating areas.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Is it that we train to the lowest common denominator or are we training more efficiently? If we really are training to the lowest common denominator than why do 121 operations have a relatively good safety record?
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Al Haynes and Chesley Sullenberger, when I have heard them speak, talked more about what their crew did than what they did.
The LAST person I would want to be piloting an airliners I am in when poo hit the fan would be a Bob Hoover. I am sure he would do fine in the twin he has, but wouldn't want to see how he treats his other crew members.
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
We train to the minimum standard. By that I mean we train to proficiency, and the bar for "proficient" isn't that high. That bar is set at the lowest common denominator level. As long as you meet that bar, you will pass your event. Sure, you may get some ass chewing along the way, but you'll be able to plod along without getting weeded out.
In my experience, the guys who consistently bounce along at the min standard level have a checkered training history. A failed lesson here, failed LOE there. But some seem perfectly happy there. The question is, are they capable of better, or are they at the top of their game already?
With regard to the safety record, I think most of that is due to system safety not pilot ability. Pilot ability has remained relatively steady, if not declined in some ways, yet safety has consistently improved. We put systems and procedures in place to trap errors. We put technology in place to trap errors. We teach pilots TEM concepts. What we don't do is expect the minimum standard to move upward. At least, the standard seems fairly constant.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
On the contrary, don't take anything I've posted at thumbing my nose at the 121 industry. Stating that the continuum of aviation experience does not end at 121 flying is not at all a slight, it is a statement of perspective, of the acknowledgement that there is a bigger picture. I have, and continue to, tip my hat at the 121 safety record. I would not, however, make the mistake of using that fact to singularly coronate every aspect of 121 operations as the pinnacle of aviation existence.
Last edited:
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Once again, how many guys and gals have you really come across that bounced along at the min standard?
When I started ten years ago we had to do NDB approaches and holds. When I transitioned to the Q400 we had to do a IMC Circle to land approach. Does it make sense to have those on check rides today? Does my ability decrease because I haven't had to do those in a decade?
How has training theory changed since 2009? We are constantly evolving as an industry.
Lawman
Well-Known Member
Right because the guy I met who has demonstrated repeatedly stick and rudder skill beyond reproach was any kind of blow hard full of himself and not the most humble of professional aviators.
Hoover lived in the era of the four ship fighter. Hell he helped build that tactic which still exists to this day. Anyone who has operated in military aviation will tell you that despite your attitude that because he sat alone in his airplane he was ever the center of the universe or that an attitude as such would be allowed to continue its simply not reality.
Despite your assumptions against Hacker and repeated attempts to paint military pilots as some sort of Jockesque quarterback Ice Man on SNL stereotype they simply aren't true. The ones like that who do make the cut of flight school into the communities around the military don't survive. We don't have a place for them, so like a bad case of the flue the bodies white blood cells (senior mentors) either correct the problem or eat them.
1500 hours proves what exactly? It's a quantitative finish line we just throw out there like somehow at hour 100 or 200 or 1499 you aren't worth the time to even review. So what if you got 5000 should we just forgo a lot of the testing done at 1500 hours? 10000 hour pilot just not ask questions he must be good to go or he wouldn't have gotten that. It isn't any kind of qualitative review of your airmanship ability or your ability to operate as part of a crew. It's simply a way to turn what would otherwise be filing cabinets full of applications into a small stack for a chief pilot to sift through and find candidates the insurance will cover.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
CRM is a technique, not a procedure.
Getting the aircraft safely on the ground is an objective measure.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Are there multiple ways to get that airplane on the ground? How can it be graded if I do it differently than you but we both get the airplane on the ground safely.
Last edited:
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
Enough. Far more than I expected when I entered the training world at a 121 carrier.
You aren't getting the point. I'm talking about people who are barely at the standard on the things we do today. Now, with today's procedures. But even for the rock star guys who never trip up, the bar for "rock star" isn't that high either. We just don't push the limits in 121 training. And that's okay. It's just a different mindset.
Last edited:
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Have you ever seen a PTS before? There are dozens of answers to your question in there.
There are lots of performance tasks that have multiple methods of accomplishment and still have objective standards to be measured against.
None the less, that is digressing into irrelelvancies and not at all what I've been talking about in my posts. @PhilosopherPilot is hitting exactly the point I'm discussing, that "the bar", when taken in the bigger perspective, just isn't relatively that high and the required tasks just aren't that complicated or difficult.
Again, not a slight -- a statement of perspective.
