Newsweek: who will pilot all those planes?

Well, you've got to understand, some guys are satisfactory fliers. They are, however, lousy Captains. Either they don't have the ability to see the "big picture", they can't employ a crew effectively or they just can't put it together.

We had a guy, once upon a time who could pass sims and line checks with aplomb. If there was someone with authority around, he was Mr. Charming. On his own, he was a disaster. Borderline psychotic. Flew for years until an F/O with a steel backbone raised the B.S. flag. He got fired. Subsequently, he got fired from his next job as well.

Sometimes those guys slip through the cracks. RSG has just had the bad luck to draw at least one of them on her airline.
 
Why not have an evaluation process before upgrade training is offered. Interview co-workers, flight attendants to get an idea how that person will handle the responsibility and how well they work with others. Look more closely at their file, safety and performance record. Evaluate their character, make it a process beyond simple seniority based auto-promotion. These may not be the best ways to go about it..but this whole process does need to be revamped by the industry.

For one thing..as f/o's, if we know that our performance, attitude and team player mentality is all being evaluated prior to upgrade approval then we would be more likely to be better f/o's and pilots. As things are now, an f/o can be the biggest inept • in the company and still get a shot at upgrade and as long as he/she knows the procedures and studies there is a good chance we'll see another bad c/a on line.
 
Velocipede said:
Well, you've got to understand, some guys are satisfactory fliers. They are, however, lousy Captains. Either they don't have the ability to see the "big picture", they can't employ a crew effectively or they just can't put it together.

We had a guy, once upon a time who could pass sims and line checks with aplomb. If there was someone with authority around, he was Mr. Charming. On his own, he was a disaster. Borderline psychotic. Flew for years until an F/O with a steel backbone raised the B.S. flag. He got fired. Subsequently, he got fired from his next job as well.

Sometimes those guys slip through the cracks. RSG has just had the bad luck to draw at least one of them on her airline.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think we have all of them....No, but seriously...Most c/a's I have flown with have been awesome. It only takes one really hardcore jackass to jade a new f/o though. I let it roll off my shoulders as much as I can. But there are some really crappy c/a's out there, not just at my place.
 
RightSeatGirl said:
Why not have an evaluation process before upgrade training is offered. Interview co-workers, flight attendants to get an idea how that person will handle the responsibility and how well they work with others. Look more closely at their file, safety and performance record. Evaluate their character, make it a process beyond simple seniority based auto-promotion. These may not be the best ways to go about it..but this whole process does need to be revamped by the industry.

For one thing..as f/o's, if we know that our performance, attitude and team player mentality is all being evaluated prior to upgrade approval then we would be more likely to be better f/o's and pilots. As things are now, an f/o can be the biggest inept • in the company and still get a shot at upgrade and as long as he/she knows the procedures and studies there is a good chance we'll see another bad c/a on line.
Click to expand...

Rocketman99 :yeahthat: It's a good start.
 
The only problem with your suggestion, RSG, is that the F/O position tends to breed chameleons. You adapt to each and every Capt. you fly with. And F/As don't really have any idea what goes on behind that closed cockpit door.

So, relying on them to provide input for upgrade would be inexact, at best.

You can ask all the Capts. about an F/Os performance, but if he's good chameleon, no one will have anything bad to say about him. And you still don't get a good readout of how he/she will transition to the left seat.

So, seniority it is. And when they fall apart in the left seat, Pro Stans is the first step to ridding the airline of the problems.
 
Velocipede said:
The only problem with your suggestion, RSG, is that the F/O position tends to breed chameleons. You adapt to each and every Capt. you fly with. And F/As don't really have any idea what goes on behind that closed cockpit door.

So, relying on them to provide input for upgrade would be inexact, at best.

You can ask all the Capts. about an F/Os performance, but if he's good chameleon, no one will have anything bad to say about him. And you still don't get a good readout of how he/she will transition to the left seat.

So, seniority it is. And when they fall apart in the left seat, Pro Stans is the first step to ridding the airline of the problems.
Click to expand...

Hmm, some valid thinking. Good points. I must ponder this more. Because you are right indeed...Being in the right seat demands you mutate into a chameleon. I look lovely in green too...
 
MFT, Velo just pretty much covered why I don't think that would work. We had this discussion once several months back on the site. When you get down to it, the seniority based system for upgrading isn't the best but it is still far better than other options that have been proposed to far.

Colgan implemented a policy about a year ago where all eligible upgraders have to have an interview board before being sent to upgrade. The board usually includes the chief pilot, flight standards, and an HR type. Supposedly the theory is to better get to know some of the FOs preparing to upgrade. What it seems to be more of is that "we didn't screen very well when we hired everyone with a pulse to fly so now we're gonna try to do it now before they upgrade." People who don't perform well are suppsoedly told they will wait a few more months for seasoning and have another interview. Honestly, I don't think it's a terrible idea, but ONLY if done for the right reasons.
 
Well. . .it appears that no matter what type of pilot a person is, some pilot, somewhere in the world, will say they are not good enough.

The cycle continues.
 
Rocketman99 said:
MFT, Velo just pretty much covered why I don't think that would work. We had this discussion once several months back on the site. When you get down to it, the seniority based system for upgrading isn't the best but it is still far better than other options that have been proposed to far.

Colgan implemented a policy about a year ago where all eligible upgraders have to have an interview board before being sent to upgrade. The board usually includes the chief pilot, flight standards, and an HR type. Supposedly the theory is to better get to know some of the FOs preparing to upgrade. What it seems to be more of is that "we didn't screen very well when we hired everyone with a pulse to fly so now we're gonna try to do it now before they upgrade." People who don't perform well are suppsoedly told they will wait a few more months for seasoning and have another interview. Honestly, I don't think it's a terrible idea, but ONLY if done for the right reasons.
Click to expand...

OK, so how adding about an evaluation criteria that includes C/As having flown with the F/O past and present. CRM is critical to crew interaction, so utilizing a perspective from CAs having flown with right seaters can also be a consideration. Like 2LTs, few make 1LT; more don't make CPT, and even a greater amount don't make O4. Putting more criterias for the consideration to upgrade could help.

Not only hours but a CA grade could make you eligible. After all, many CA can also read who can and cannot make the grade while in the cockpit. Negative trends can show up in a point score over time.
 
Rocketman99 said:
Meaning that there shouldn't be standards to
meet? Or just that some people are never satisfied?
Click to expand...

Some people are never satisfied.

Standards are great, and should be kept as is.

But, usually the people that say the standards are not high enough are the same people pulling the ladder up because they already "Got theirs."

So, the cycle continues.
 
As I said, even the CAs who fly with F/Os never get a true readout on how a guy will command. Because he isn't in command. You'd be amazed at how little the average F/O will "usurp" authority. They try to avoid it.

However, I can usually tell when an F/O is ready to upgrade because they begin to take ownership of the flights when they are the flying pilot. Some CAs get P.O.ed about it, but I look on it as a sign of development.
 
surreal1221 said:
Well. . .it appears that no matter what type of pilot a person is, some pilot, somewhere in the world, will say they are not good enough.

The cycle continues.
Click to expand...

Some of those people are right too, bro. Remember that. . .we've seen many a skilled pilot whose CRM skills can be detrimental to safe flying. When do you wish to find out. . .before or after the potential accident?
 
Velocipede said:
As I said, even the CAs who fly with F/Os never get a true readout on how a guy will command. Because he isn't in command. You'd be amazed at how little the average F/O will "usurp" authority. They try to avoid it.

However, I can usually tell when an F/O is ready to upgrade because they begin to take ownership of the flights when they are the flying pilot. Some CAs get P.O.ed about it, but I look on it as a sign of development.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't that reluctance be scored and recorded by CAs?

As for the CAs being P.O.ed about it, perhaps this thought process should be a paradigm shift and more professional development change in their thought process as well. After all, who grooms CAs once they become CAs?
 
No, because they aren't in Command. It isn't a ship, where you have bridge watches. There is only one Captain. That's what upgrade IOE is all about, IPs grading command ability.
 
MFT1Air said:
Some of those people are right too, bro. Remember that. . .we've seen many a skilled pilot whose CRM skills can be detrimental to safe flying. When do you wish to find out. . .before or after the potential accident?
Click to expand...

Ah hah!

See. . .

You mentioned an area that you think needs (potentially) improving. Personally, CRM is a continuous development of strategies that will provide a safe cockpit and overall flight environment.

MFT, I'm glad you actually mentioned SOMETHING instead of just saying Low time pilots are bad, or high time FOs upgrading are bad, or airplanes have more technology and are bad, etc. like some people.

I don't mind people saying they think actual segments of our industry need improvement, but when it's just the usual anti-low timer, anti-FO upgrading banter it's rather pointless.
 
Velocipede said:
No, because they aren't in Command. It isn't a ship, where you have bridge watches. There is only one Captain. That's what upgrade IOE is all about, IPs grading command ability.
Click to expand...

Velo,

I'm understanding you completely here, but I'm still having to believe within the cockpit, there are measurable or quantifiable skills that CAs see of F/Os that can be scored for future reference. If not, there should be. Senior pilots in the cockpit can identify what it takes to make the grade as CAs, don't you think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top