Check Ride Failure

[Clocks]

Actually, as per the FAA approved 141 syllabus, the check ride is just the final lesson in that phase of training. A failed ride is no different than having an unsatisfactory lesson. You must go back up with your/another instructor for a remedial flight, or ground review if applicable, and get signed off again to re-take the failed lesson. It only counts as a failed lesson.

Just about any airline will ask about failed 141 checks too, either in the application process or in the interview.

The whole "don't worry because a 141 checkride is only a lesson so you wont have to disclose it on an interview" is a story passed around at the local airport, but doesn't mean squat in real life.

 

[Ajax]

Just about any airline will ask about failed 141 checks too, either in the application process or in the interview.

The whole "don't worry because a 141 checkride is only a lesson so you wont have to disclose it on an interview" is a story passed around at the local airport, but doesn't mean squat in real life.

Bummer, I guess when I heard who picked my check I shouldn't have thought the challenge would be fun and to "beat him at his own game" instead I should have taken my instructor's advice and rescheduled with another instructor. Hindsight = 20/20

 

[ppragman]

Very rarely in human cause accidents will you find "irrefutable evidence" of correlations. You do see trends, however:
http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/mostwanted/oversight-pilot-proficiency.htm
http://web02.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/05235p08.xml&headline=FedEx%20Crash%20Highlights%20Need%20to%20Correct%20Performance%20Deficiencies

Do you want a doctor operating on you who was in the bottom 5% of his/her graduating class, failed multiple portions of residency and failed his/her boards?

But is he the cheapest doctor?

 

[born2aviate]

Very rarely in human cause accidents will you find "irrefutable evidence" of correlations. You do see trends, however:
http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/mostwanted/oversight-pilot-proficiency.htm
http://web02.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/05235p08.xml&headline=FedEx%20Crash%20Highlights%20Need%20to%20Correct%20Performance%20Deficiencies

Do you want a doctor operating on you who was in the bottom 5% of his/her graduating class, failed multiple portions of residency and failed his/her boards?

So you think it is accurate to say that because a pilot busted a ride or two when they had <300tt should put an end to their career before it even began? Does the thousand plus hours that the pilot puts between him/her and the checkride stand for nothing?

 

[born2aviate]

In addition to all the skill and knowledge required to take a checkride, their is a hint of luck that is also needed. We all have our bad days/brain farts. Some of us had it with a DPE sitting next to us.

 

[Blackhawk]

A ride? No, should not stop a career. Two? Starting to show a trend. More than two? Not only does the pilot need hours (I've seen pilots with thousands of hours who I would not trust with a bicycle), but a demonstrated ability to pass check rides.

 

[Blackhawk]

But is he the cheapest doctor?

Why not? Everyone on this website wants the cheapest training.

 

[ppragman]

Why not? Everyone on this website wants the cheapest training.

That was the point I was trying to make. Yeah.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Do you want a doctor operating on you who was in the bottom 5% of his/her graduating class, failed multiple portions of residency and failed his/her boards?

Maybe. It depends. Is the doctor brand new and just had these failures? Or were those failures years ago and he's now had a successful practice for a long time? A spotless 10-year record would lead me to think that he just didn't test well, but is actually a very good doctor.

 

[Blackhawk]

Maybe. It depends. Is the doctor brand new and just had these failures? Or were those failures years ago and he's now had a successful practice for a long time? A spotless 10-year record would lead me to think that he just didn't test well, but is actually a very good doctor.

Someone who is currently a CFI and has no 135/121 experience is pretty new. Also, there is a difference between a written test and a practical test. Someone who consistently does poorly on practical tests probably should not be flying. Is there pressure? Yes, but that's flying. Even after years of checkrides in the military and civilian side I still get nervous, but if you can't deal with that do something else.

 

[FDX8891]

Very rarely in human cause accidents will you find "irrefutable evidence" of correlations. You do see trends, however:
http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/mostwanted/oversight-pilot-proficiency.htm
http://web02.aviationweek.com/aw/ge...ghts Need to Correct Performance Deficiencies

Do you want a doctor operating on you who was in the bottom 5% of his/her graduating class, failed multiple portions of residency and failed his/her boards?

You're right, trends, not irrefutable evidence. That's what I'm getting at. If somebody can't pass a checkride, any checkride, then that probably indicates a larger issue. But if someone busted one or two rides pre-commercial, went on to show a large trend of success with subsequent checkrides with no failures, instructed for hundreds of hours and has thousands of hours of safe flying between then and now, then I think an airline should focus on the bigger picture rather than that person's 2 busts over 5 years ago.

Although Renslow had multiple (more than 2) checkride failures before even getting to an airline, to me the bigger deal are his failed 121 checks. As for the FedEx article, those are 121 checks. Entirely different than a part 61 or 141 private or instrument checkride.

Do I want a doctor exactly like the one you described above? No. But if a Doctor failed a couple tests years before they got certified, graduated in the top half of their class, went on to become a leader in their respective field and successfully took care of thousands of patients, then does that really seem ok to hold their 2 bad tests against them?

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Someone who is currently a CFI and has no 135/121 experience is pretty new.

Agreed, but you seem to imply that he shouldn't even be given the opportunity to attain that 121/135 experience. It sounds as though the OP has had quite a respectable record as a CFI, with 2,500 hours, a CFI/II/MEI, Gold Seal, and a very good pass rate. That's nothing to sneeze at. That's real world experience rather than these ridiculous check rides that we do in primary flight training. I wouldn't hesitate to have him as an FO on an RJ.

Also, there is a difference between a written test and a practical test. Someone who consistently does poorly on practical tests probably should not be flying. Is there pressure? Yes, but that's flying. Even after years of checkrides in the military and civilian side I still get nervous, but if you can't deal with that do something else.

I completely disagree. The kind of nervousness that results from a checkride is not the same thing as the kind of nervousness that results from a real-world emergency. People who perform poorly on a checkride can easily be the most calm and collected pilots during a real engine failure or other emergency. I've never seen a linkage between the two.

As someone said above, I think we need to draw a distinction between clear patterns and just a few bad days. Someone who has had repeated problems over his career with multiple failures and continuous training problems probably shouldn't be flying airplanes. But someone who had a few bad days during checkrides but has performed well otherwise shouldn't be shunned by the industry.

 

[wrxpilot]

Where is the irrefutable evidence that having a checkride failure or two directly correlates to an increased likelihood of having an accident later on down the road? If there was, then there would be no discussion.

I wouldn't say these are irrefutable evidence, but the following accidents are certainly indicative of weak pilots and failed checkrides being associated with fatal accidents:

United Express 6291
Eagle Flight 3379
Colgan 3407

Take a look at the accident reports with the first two. They are eerily similar to Colgan. I'd attach the links, but I'm on my iPhone right now.

 

[Rudabega]

I once heard a conversation that went like this, "So the FAA is sitting in on your checkride tomorrow, so I have to fail you. Dinner is on me tonight."

If checkrides were consistant from one examiner to the next it would be one thing but as-is no two checkrides are the same. This trend will go away in time.

 

[wrxpilot]

I once heard a conversation that went like this, "So the FAA is sitting in on your checkride tomorrow, so I have to fail you. Dinner is on me tonight."

If checkrides were consistant from one examiner to the next it would be one thing but as-is no two checkrides are the same. This trend will go away in time.

If that's true, and the applicant was stupid enough to go through with the checkride, they probably deserved to fail. I mean seriously, why would somebody agree to take a checkride after that conversation? Having taken two checkrides with the FAA supervising, the conversation doesn't make any sense anyway.

 

[Hacker15e]

You guys are railing against something none of us have control over.

If the airlines decide that they don't want to hire guys with multiple checkride failures, regardless of when it occurred in their experience, that's their perogative. There are lots of other hurdles that airlines want their employees to have cleared, too, that are just as arbitrary if you look at it objectively. They're perfectly within their lane to make such requirements and not hire folks who don't meet that standard. Just like we discussed in the thread about families, we don't live in a socialist society where a job is a right and you must be provided with one. Employers have the right to determine who they do and do not wish to employ, it's as simple as that. This is the current list of properties that the airlines have determined -- for whatever reason, and regardless of if any of you believe it to be valid or not -- they want to have in a pilot they hire.

You can either be angry about it and rage against the machine (and waste your time and effort), or you can adjust fire accordingly.

If you're pissed that the "rules of the game" have been changed while you're mid-career, or after you've all ready invested lots of time and money toward your goal of working at the airlines, well...c'est la vie. Stuff happens.

And there are plenty of other places to earn a living as a professional pilot outside of the airlines.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Hacker, if we didn't debate things we have no control over, this place would be very quiet most of the time.

 

[Hacker15e]

Hacker, if we didn't debate things we have no control over, this place would be very quiet most of the time.

Valid point!

 

[Blackhawk]

You're right, trends, not irrefutable evidence. That's what I'm getting at. If somebody can't pass a checkride, any checkride, then that probably indicates a larger issue. But if someone busted one or two rides pre-commercial, went on to show a large trend of success with subsequent checkrides with no failures, instructed for hundreds of hours and has thousands of hours of safe flying between then and now, then I think an airline should focus on the bigger picture rather than that person's 2 busts over 5 years ago.

Although Renslow had multiple (more than 2) checkride failures before even getting to an airline, to me the bigger deal are his failed 121 checks. As for the FedEx article, those are 121 checks. Entirely different than a part 61 or 141 private or instrument checkride.

Do I want a doctor exactly like the one you described above? No. But if a Doctor failed a couple tests years before they got certified, graduated in the top half of their class, went on to become a leader in their respective field and successfully took care of thousands of patients, then does that really seem ok to hold their 2 bad tests against them?

... and recently failed his ATP on the first try. So there is recent history as well as past history. We're not talkig about someone who busted his private then did well from there. Anyone can log thousands of hours and obtaining a Gold Seal is really not a big deal. Given the number of high time pilots available I would not take a risk on such a person either until he had established a history of passing checkrides. Airline training ain't cheap and I'm going to make sure the person I hire will make it through. If this guy wants to still make it in the 121 world he will probably need to work a few more years and get a few more checkrides under his belt.

 

[BeRich]

Do you want a doctor operating on you who was in the bottom 5% of his/her graduating class, failed multiple portions of residency and failed his/her boards?

If he has an amazing record after school, then maybe.

Right now, it's a buyers market. The airlines get to choose who they pick, and it makes sense for them to pick people who haven't failed checkrides over those who have. Sorry, but that's how it is. Regardless of what checkride failures actually say about a pilot, the public sees checkride failures as a sign of a crappy pilot.

When there's less people to choose from, they'll start hiring guys with more failures.