1500 rule in possible jeopardy

[SpiraMirabilis]

They didn't think AQP up because they were getting tired of giving people pink slips. Most 121 washouts occur because of failure to be signed off to continue with the next sim, not for checkride failures. Airlines are going towards AQP because it seems to be better in every respect than PC/PTs.

Airline safety is one of the gold standards for safety in basically the entire world, regardless of industry. The only industries that might take safety more seriously are nuclear reactors (and thats debtable) or state sponsored space travel, perhaps. It's not like they have people throwing spitwads at the wall to come up with ideas like AQP. You wouldn't believe the big brains just ALPA has who specialize in this sort of thing, much less considering all the rest of the industry and FAA.

 

[Seggy]

Like I said earlier, many pilots aren't afforded the opportunity to either shine, or figure out they are a sack of hammers.

99.9% of us don't need to be afforded the opportunity to shine. We are confident with our abilities and the way we manage the cockpit. We also know our deficiencies and strive to work on them.

Do you need the confidence boost with assurances from others that you are a good pilot?

 

[Seggy]

They didn't think AQP up because they were getting tired of giving people pink slips. Most 121 washouts occur because of failure to be signed off to continue with the next sim, not for checkride failures. Airlines are going towards AQP because it seems to be better in every respect than PC/PTs.

Airline safety is one of the gold standards for safety in basically the entire world, regardless of industry. The only industries that might take safety more seriously are nuclear reactors (and thats debtable) or state sponsored space travel, perhaps. It's not like they have people throwing spitwads at the wall to come up with ideas like AQP. You wouldn't believe the big brains just ALPA has who specialize in this sort of thing, much less considering all the rest of the industry and FAA.

Great post.

The only thing I want to add is that AQP focuses on the crew interaction, not the individual. Yes, sometimes individuals need to be corrected, but overall the crew is being trained.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

Great post.

The only thing I want to add is that AQP focuses on the crew interaction, not the individual. Yes, sometimes individuals need to be corrected, but overall the crew is being trained.

Yes, and that seemed to be the thing most deficient at airlines. Or perhaps least emphasized is a better phrasing. Individual skill is great and all but nobody has even demonstrated that PCs are good at developing individual skill, much less that they are better than the AQP approach. PCs are just what everybody is used to. They had checkrides back when they were still called flying machines, for gods sake.

It makes more sense to me to instead of having a single even be jeopardy to base whether to cut someone lose on the entirety of the training and whether or not they are making progress. But thats above my paygrade.

 

[Maximilian_Jenius]

AQP? What does that stand for and what kind of program is it?

 

[ctab5060X]

AQP? What does that stand for and what kind of program is it?

@Maximillian_Jenius

Advanced Qualification Program

https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/training/aqp/

 

[Hacker15e]

I am saying it as you keep missing the point that performance will be graded how you react as a crew in an emergency situation in the 121 environment.

What I meant to say was, I have plenty of experience teaching and assessing pilot performance in crew aircraft, and it is wholly possible, and completely effective, to separately assess individual performance of tasks as well as performance as part of the crew, and both against objective criteria. One does not preclude the other, nor does it harm the other.

There are a lot of people that not only do this, but find it an effective and successful method of training and evaluation.

Thus, no, a couple posts on an Internet forum anecdotally discussing people and incidents I was all ready well familiar with, are not sufficient to singularly bend or change the belief I've formulated in the last 20 years I've been a professional aviator and instructor.

 

[Seggy]

What I meant to say was, I have plenty of experience teaching and assessing pilot performance in crew aircraft, and it is wholly possible, and completely effective, to separately assess individual performance of tasks as well as performance as part of the crew, and both against objective criteria. One does not preclude the other, nor does it harm the other.

There are a lot of people that not only do this, but find it an effective and successful method of training and evaluation.

Thus, no, a couple posts on an Internet forum anecdotally discussing people and incidents I was all ready well familiar with, are not sufficient to singularly bend or change the belief I've formulated in the last 20 years I've been a professional aviator and instructor.

Before I respond in greater detail, what are your thoughts on AQP training?

 

[BobDDuck]

What I meant to say was, I have plenty of experience teaching and assessing pilot performance in crew aircraft, and it is wholly possible, and completely effective, to separately assess individual performance of tasks as well as performance as part of the crew, and both against objective criteria. One does not preclude the other, nor does it harm the other.

Yes, but that's not how AQP (or the real world) works. If a guy is super pilot, but the other guy in the cockpit is terrible and screws up and shuts down the wrong engine, in the sim world, they are both going to fail and the in the real world, they both are going to die (or at least have a really bad time). It's great that you (as an examiner) can individually assess each guy's performance and skill level, but at the end of the day, in a multi crew aircraft, you're only as strong as the weakest link.

 

[PhilosopherPilot]

Yes, but that's not how AQP (or the real world) works. If a guy is super pilot, but the other guy in the cockpit is terrible and screws up and shuts down the wrong engine, in the sim world, they are both going to fail and the in the real world, they both are going to die (or at least have a really bad time). It's great that you (as an examiner) can individually assess each guy's performance and skill level, but at the end of the day, in a multi crew aircraft, you're only as strong as the weakest link.

It's not necessarily true that you live and die as a crew in sim world. I've failed singular members of the crew, and passed the other. Typically FOs can pass if the captain is weak. It's difficult for a captain to pass if he allows a weak FO to screw him up though. I agree with that.

I have passed FOs who carried the captain along, and failed the captain based on lack of judgement and decision making ability.

 

[Hacker15e]

Before I respond in greater detail, what are your thoughts on AQP training?

As I said in an earlier post, however the airlines want to train is fine--whatever works best for their FAA inspector and their company's bottom line.

 

[Hacker15e]

Yes, but that's not how AQP (or the real world) works. If a guy is super pilot, but the other guy in the cockpit is terrible and screws up and shuts down the wrong engine, in the sim world, they are both going to fail and the in the real world, they both are going to die (or at least have a really bad time). It's great that you (as an examiner) can individually assess each guy's performance and skill level, but at the end of the day, in a multi crew aircraft, you're only as strong as the weakest link.

I don't know why some folks are getting from what I've said that evaluation of the crew/team skills are not important or should not be looked at. Of course they should -- that's a core aspect of airmanship in the multi-pilot environment, as you note. It just isn't the only thing to look at. Teamwork skills and individual skills exist side by side and also must work hand in hand.

The last line I highlighted is exactly the reason that measurement of individual merit is crucial. I thoroughly agree with the statement.

This has been fun, but the hive has made up its mind on this one. Thanks for the discussion, I'm out.

 

[MikeD]

It's not necessarily true that you live and die as a crew in sim world. I've failed singular members of the crew, and passed the other. Typically FOs can pass if the captain is weak. It's difficult for a captain to pass if he allows a weak FO to screw him up though. I agree with that.

I have passed FOs who carried the captain along, and failed the captain based on lack of judgement and decision making ability.

I don't know why some folks are getting from what I've said that evaluation of the crew/team skills are not important or should not be looked at. Of course they should -- that's a core aspect of airmanship in the multi-pilot environment, as you note. It just isn't the only thing to look at. Teamwork skills and individual skills exist side by side and also must work hand in hand.

The last line I highlighted is exactly the reason that measurement of individual merit is crucial. I thoroughly agree with the statement.

This has been fun, but the hive has made up its mind on this one. Thanks for the discussion, I'm out.

And in training, you have to be able to retain the ability to do the above, as you say Philosopher, as well as the bolded part that Hacker refers to.

Because while a crew is a crew, a crew is ultimately made up of individuals. Individuals who bring something to the table in order to make up their end....their contribution.....to the crew as a whole. If someone isn't bringing the required amount of game to the table, then that weak link can only be allowed to be so weak. There's a point where that link needs to be repaired.......individual trained or retrained......rather than be allowed to be an excessive weak link that ultimately destroys the crew as a whole at some point down the road on some flight.

Which is especially tragic and unforgivable, if it was a weakness that was known to exist....yet allowed to continue as-is.

 

[MikeD]

Yes, but that's not how AQP (or the real world) works..

You do realize that you're talking down to a guy who has far more years flying crew aircraft and in a crew environment, than many of the people posting in this thread do, including you, or even me?

CRM isn't anything new to him. At all. And it's not a rocket-science concept that only those in 121 are able to somehow comprehend.

 

[milleR]

I don't know why some folks are getting from what I've said that evaluation of the crew/team skills are not important or should not be looked at. Of course they should -- that's a core aspect of airmanship in the multi-pilot environment, as you note. It just isn't the only thing to look at. Teamwork skills and individual skills exist side by side and also must work hand in hand.

The last line I highlighted is exactly the reason that measurement of individual merit is crucial. I thoroughly agree with the statement.

This has been fun, but the hive has made up its mind on this one. Thanks for the discussion, I'm out.

Thank you for your contributions to this thread.

We regret to inform you that your opinion, while based on both professional education and anecdotal experience, is disregarded and considered moot. It is our expectation that through continuing your experience in the FAR Part 121 Aviation Environment you will develop the interpersonal and aeronautical experience to enhance your emotional and behavioral patterns to better conform with the collective thought process. To this end we wish you the best of luck and success in your endeavors.

Respectfully,

*(crap how does this go . .) I don't posses the vocabulary to express myself . . ahh f- it.* " Those guys."

 

[Seggy]

You do realize that you're talking down to a guy who has far more years flying crew aircraft and in a crew environment, than many of the people posting in this thread do, including you, or even me?

CRM isn't anything new to him. At all. And it's not a rocket-science concept that only those in 121 are able to somehow comprehend.

Yes, but doesn't mean he is right.

 

[MikeD]

Yes, but doesn't mean he is right.

Nor does it mean he's wrong. In terms of experience, he's been there and done that with CRM long before you, me, or a number of others here have. In that sense, he's probably seen many valid ways of doing business in that realm, some more effective than others, I'm sure. Just because he's new to 121, doesn't mean he's new to aviation and crew flying. Not by a long shot.

 

[Seggy]

What I meant to say was, I have plenty of experience teaching and assessing pilot performance in crew aircraft, and it is wholly possible, and completely effective, to separately assess individual performance of tasks as well as performance as part of the crew, and both against objective criteria. One does not preclude the other, nor does it harm the other.

There are a lot of people that not only do this, but find it an effective and successful method of training and evaluation.

Thus, no, a couple posts on an Internet forum anecdotally discussing people and incidents I was all ready well familiar with, are not sufficient to singularly bend or change the belief I've formulated in the last 20 years I've been a professional aviator and instructor.

I don't know why some folks are getting from what I've said that evaluation of the crew/team skills are not important or should not be looked at. Of course they should -- that's a core aspect of airmanship in the multi-pilot environment, as you note. It just isn't the only thing to look at. Teamwork skills and individual skills exist side by side and also must work hand in hand.

The last line I highlighted is exactly the reason that measurement of individual merit is crucial. I thoroughly agree with the statement.

This has been fun, but the hive has made up its mind on this one. Thanks for the discussion, I'm out.

The fact of the matter is, that in the four aircraft I have flown at 121 airlines, the same concept applies to the V1 cut across them all.

Keep the plane on the runway a few seconds longer than you think you need to, pitch for about 12.5 degrees. So, in your experience teaching and assessing pilot performance, what does it really prove if I, as an individual, can do a V1 cut perfectly in the sim? It proves I can do a V1 cut. Well actually it proves you know how to deal with a sims computer programer.

Once again, the real test in my mind is what happens AFTER the engine fails getting the airplane on the ground safely with your crew. You aren't doing that as an individual.

 

[MikeD]

Keep the plane on the runway a few seconds longer than you think you need to, pitch for about 12.5 degrees. So, in your experience teaching and assessing pilot performance, what does it really prove if I, as an individual, can do a V1 cut perfectly in the sim? It proves I can do a V1 cut. Well actually it proves you know how to deal with a sims computer programer.

It proves that you can bring some capabilities to the table of the crew environment, and are ready for that test now. --->

Once again, the real test in my mind is what happens AFTER the engine fails getting the airplane on the ground safely with your crew. You aren't doing that as an individual.

Agreed. But....... if you can't do your job as an individual.........can't carry your own weight, or don't bring anything to the crew table ability-wise; how exactly are you helping the crew again?

If you can't pass test #1 above, you have no business advancing to test #2

 

[Seggy]

Nor does it mean he's wrong. In terms of experience, he's been there and done that with CRM long before you, me, or a number of others here have. In that sense, he's probably seen many valid ways of doing business in that realm, some more effective than others, I'm sure. Just because he's new to 121, doesn't mean he's new to aviation and crew flying. Not by a long shot.

To start, I am an outsider, no doubt, however, I am not impressed with the Air Force's version of CRM/TEM.

Also, in my mind, there are some holes in my mind about his commentary about the Air Force accidents I highlighted earlier that were never responded to.

I am not doubting his ability or the fact that he has been crew flying for a while. Not at all. However, I don't agree with his continued emphasis on the individual instead of the crew.