Failed Checkride Poll (anonymous)

[KLB]

The thing with those 141 stage checks is that you are so dependent on the instructor to have you prepared for them (especially has a private pilot). I had a series of awful instructors during my private pilot course at my alma mater. And then you add the check pilots busting you on irrevelant things and you can imagine the results.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

I failed _3_ checkrides. 1 checkride on my pilot certificate and 2 checkrides on my flight instructor certificate. I've never failed any checkride on any 121 initial or recurrent, or line check or 135 initial check though.

 

[C150J]

So you guys are considering 141 stage checks as failures, when they have no ramifications on your certificate and are not being conducted by a DPE or FAA Examiner?

I think that's a little harsh on yourself and may be muddying up the poll results.

So you bust a stage check, big deal. You still have your certificate and you retrain, on your dime. You bust an FAA required practical (checkride) and you're pink slipped . . . now that's a failure.

Believe me, I think the whole system is ridiculous and needs a complete overhaul. However, I think we're going to see self-examining authority 141 folders go "public" with new PRIA language.

 

[deadstick]

Plans? What plans?

The poll above asks about checkrides which to me mean FAA practical exams performed by a DPA or FAA Examiner. Not 141 stage checks conducted by a CFI.

C150J's plans w/ HR? If that's the plan, then I would recommend he not focus deep down to 141 stage checks. What about the Part 61 student who took 20-100% longer than FAA requirements to receive a certificate or add-on? We going to look at them as well?

Personally I'd be a bit more concerned with the undocumented continuation of additional training to someone in the Part 61 environment versus one or two stage check failures during the course of multiple Part 141 training. I'm sure all of us instructors are well aware of one or two students who took double the amount of time needed to understand a concept or to meet standards and we just couldn't convince them to throw the towel in, protect themselves, and the flying public. Nah, eventually after enough money was spent they were able to eek out a "PASS."

Muh - anyway. pseudo-rant over.

Trouble is, the Part 61 numb-toes who take forever and can't fly worth a crap will never be spotted because such records of training issues are not necessarily easily accessible to hiring departments. I also have an issue with Part 141 documentation used during flight training in the hands of Company A being used by Company B to evaluate a candidate for a position.

These companies, while using current hiring practices, need to look inward at finding proper examination strategies and techniques rather then looking to sift through stacks of 141 paperwork with a candidate's application. The time drain that'll have is laughable.

Chill.


C150J mentioned hiring practices and background information. I was saying that the choice might be removed from the company's control. This was from the language presented at the FAA Call to Action. The Congress put out a "one failure and you're done in commercial aviation" clause, and I seem to remember the FAA guy reading it said that included 141 training records/stage checks.

My first post was to emphasize how stupid this is because of the lack of standardization (quality/content) in training, as well as the differences in the training records themselves. How long do you think it would take the DOD to make all pilot training records available to the airlines?

As for the "taking forever" folks, well, there is that pesky principle of recency. Some people are not able to fly 4 days a week. Some take a year to get the private license because they fly 2-4 times a month. Some have to work in order to pay for the flying. Because they cannot fly 4 times a week, it WILL take them longer. I believe the national average for the private is 65 hours, now. So has that person with 60 hrs "taken forever?"

Now that last part, I agree with that. The hiring process needs to include more than a check of an applicant's vital signs.

 

[surreal1221]

No, but the person who took 120 or 140 has.

My point is that the 141 system picks up some extremely minor training issues, where as Part 61 can allow a totally horrible pilot to continue to train without any paper trail.

As far as those who take forever. . .I was one of them. I started my private training in June of 2006. April of 2007 I had my certificate. I flew on average twice a week, with two hours being the average lesson. Completed my private at around 45 hours. Worked a full time job, shift schedule and a part-time job.

Oh - and you chill!

 

[C150J]

Thanks again to everyone for their votes and above-and-beyond involvement. I am trying my hardest to relay the concerns discussed, as this career is getting incredibly litigious. I would hate for good people to get turned away because an airline is merely afraid of uniformed public perception.

Personally, I think establishing a positive trend after failure is a more than acceptable route to rehabilitation. Gaining additional training, building more time, or exhibiting competence through other means seams more than reasonable to me. I just hope our hiring guys agree. I also think we need to look more "outside the cockpit" when hiring, including factors that indicate good social skills and ability to communicate. You're of no use to an airline if you can fly steep turns to ATP standards 100% of the time, yet can't relay a weather delay to the cabin.

I don't mean for this to sound like I'm promoting mediocrity, but I also think we need to have a "good ENOUGH" metric for flying skills, and focus much more on judgement and maturity.

 

[MikeD]

Oddly related to this thread:

"Pilot of 3407 shouldn't have been flying" according to the Pinnacle CEO, Colgan parent...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/07/ny.crash.probe/index.html

 

[C150J]

Oddly related to this thread:

"Pilot of 3407 shouldn't have been flying" according to the Pinnacle CEO, Colgan parent...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/07/ny.crash.probe/index.html

That's such an incredulous statement to make!

 

[PeterPilot]

A failed practical test says much more about the recommending instructor than the applicant.

 

[C150J]

Just wanted to keep everyone apprised of what's going on:

Spoke with the HR folks, and they have determined that there will NOT be a maximum failure limit. If they are solely concerned about someone's training record, the yes/no decision will be put entirely in the hands of flight operations management. That's the good news.

The BAD news is that, thanks to terrible reporting and public misconceptions, they acknowledge that the mere appearance of "lack of due diligence" is a liability. What does that mean? If they have a surplus of candidates, they're probably going to use failures as a filtering process (all else being equal). The combination of the media's sensationalism and the NTSB and FAA's failure to offer a rebuttal has left checkride histories in the forefront. Add Senators that want a "one strike and you're out" policy and you have a disheartening situation.

Personally, I think that if failures are going to be used in hiring decisions, they need to be thoroughly investigated. If a candidate can prove that they've overcome their deficiencies, there should be no stigma attached. We could ALL use retraining in one area of another, and there is no reason to not get picked up for receiving additional instruction.

 

[ATPtoATC]

Sooooo, just how is an airline going to get their hands on my 141 training records? The school is only required to hold on to each record for a period of 1 year after that particular course is completed. My school does not have a single lesson plan from my training....because I have them all, and boy, I'm not really sure where I put those because there's no regulation on me having to keep them.

Also, counting 141 stage checks is really pretty underhanded. The whole point of 141 training is better training through standardization. So I chose to go to what is supposed to be a better school, theoretically received better training, and have put my career on the line because I had to do intermediate stage checks? That just doesn't make any sense.

 

[jynxyjoe]

Eh, I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[C150J]

Sooooo, just how is an airline going to get their hands on my 141 training records? The school is only required to hold on to each record for a period of 1 year after that particular course is completed. My school does not have a single lesson plan from my training....because I have them all, and boy, I'm not really sure where I put those because there's no regulation on me having to keep them.

Also, counting 141 stage checks is really pretty underhanded. The whole point of 141 training is better training through standardization. So I chose to go to what is supposed to be a better school, theoretically received better training, and have put my career on the line because I had to do intermediate stage checks? That just doesn't make any sense.

The proposed rule-making would keep these records. If I had it my way, pilot competency would be evaluated by check airman (not just one) over the course of your first year in both seats, having NOTHING to do with primary training. One trip with an IOE LCA every quarter, designed to monitor your progress and decision-making skills.

This is the biggest red herring I've seen in a while, and will only stop when the next accident has someone with a perfect ride record in the left seat. After all, in the 15,000+ accidents that the FAA reviewed for the NTSB, no correlation was found between checkride failures and crashing (http://www.ntsb.gov/Dockets/Aviation/DCA09MA027/417587.pdf).

 

[saxman]

One thing not mentioned in this discussion: oral exams. Part of the practical test is the oral exam and usually I'm more nervous during the oral portion than the flight. I failed an oral once during my 121 recurrent once. No, it wasn't that I missed a memory item or limitation. I just had a few performance things mixed up, and he decided he couldn't let that one slide. (I actually had the answer right the first time. He pulled the, are you sure, are you sure, so I second guessed myself)

I also failed my initial 121 flight. Just got things flustered with the auto-pilot and flight director on doing things I never did in training. No big deal. I came back and nailed the next check ride with doing the LDA 19 into DCA. I became a much better pilot and did really well in IOE, and 2 years later, I think I'm fine.

Hopefully these two things won't bite me later. The thing is, I learned from my mistakes and am probably a better pilot than if I hadn't done those things in the checkride.

So naturally, I don't like when people try to say that if I've failed just one ride, then that must mean I'm a bad pilot. Checkrides are such an subjective way of testing pilot skills. And failing one or two doesn't make you a bad pilot.

 

[granlistillo]

I've been lucky - I've never busted a ride, but I think I pro'lly should have. I always get checkitis and usually perform below my peak. I have made some really boneheaded moves, but I have always seem to catch them and then fight to correct them. I think I have gotten some mulligans for my efforts and not giving up. As I figure if they don't say this ride is over, you can recover.

A lot of gamemanship involved, humble is good and over study for the oral, but do not offer information as if you are going to "impress" the guy. Almost every checkride I have had the examiner has gave me a pointer or two.

I got a good tip in 121 initial ground. I had been really digging into the PRM, and making overly verbose explanations. So my instructor had chided me a bit... I relapsed. He pulled out a pencil and says: " This is a checkride oral. Now do you know what this is?"
I answered as simple as I could: "A pencil"
"fail" "Let's try this again, do you know what this is?"
Me: "Yes"
--------------
On a totally separate note, all this talk of digging into GA checkrides is really putting off my desire to get additional ratings like seaplanes or gliders... I would really think twice before taking any unnecessary chance.

 

[Crockrocket94]

A failed practical test says much more about the recommending instructor than the applicant.

Not always. It can, but not always.

I know some people who just brain farted. I busted 2, IR and MEI, none were because of my CFI's. It was because of me.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I busted both the oral and the practical test for the PVT. That was the last failure on my record, though.

 

[MikeD]

I busted both the oral and the practical test for the PVT. That was the last failure on my record, though.

OMG! You must be a totally unsafe pilot then! [Complete ]

 

[surreal1221]

OMG! You must be a totally unsafe pilot then! [Complete ]

No.

Todd is unsafe because he is with ALPA.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

OMG! You must be a totally unsafe pilot then! [Complete ]

As long as it's been since I've actually flown an airplane, I probably am!