Failing a CAE/Simuflite checkride

cencal83406 said:
I'm sure the CAE/Simuflight guys or their students would appreciate the FAA breathing down their necks looking for "why are folks wondering whether the checkrides we authorize them to provide are testing people to the PTS."

Or do you think this place is anonymous?
Click to expand...

I never said it was because it was easy, I just think their teaching is so through and complete that it is nearly impossible to fail.

:)

And yes, this place is as anonymous as you want to make it.
 
Obviously the mods can figure out who is who, but who from the FAA or whoever you think would be interested in this mindless drivel would have access to what the mods can see?
 
cencal83406 said:
Haha. It is? I bet it is not. @Derg ? @Autothrust Blue ? @drunkenbeagle ?
Click to expand...
Have any of those three been to Simuflite?

I follow what Jimmy is saying. Or at least what I think he's saying. PTS standards are not that tough, at least in the overall scheme of things. Simuflite, and FlightSafety, run their schools as efficiently as possible because they operate in a competitive environment. Their goal is very high pass rates at the lowest cost in order to garner customers while still making a profit. In both places, at least in my experience, their first goal is to train to pass the oral and check ride, and their secondary goal is to impart as much additional training and learning as possible to make their product desirable.

Do Simuflite and/or FlightSafety train as thoroughly as the airlines do (which I suspect is what you were implying)? I don't know since I've never been through a 121program.
 
My experience at FS:

A week of ground school spent applying past experience and academic theory to an actual aircraft. Then refining that theory into executable actions using the checklists.
Spent 20 hours in the sim feeling like I was barely hanging on by my fingernails, completing actions at the last nanosecond.
2.5 hours in the checkride thinking "Doesn't he want to know why I'm doing this? I can explain more..." "I didn't like how that approach went, surely he'll say something..."
30 minutes after the debrief I realized that we'd been trained to such higher standards than the PTS required, the checkride should have been less a worry than what to have for lunch.
 
SteveC said:
Have any of those three been to Simuflite?

I follow what Jimmy is saying. Or at least what I think he's saying. PTS standards are not that tough, at least in the overall scheme of things. Simuflite, and FlightSafety, run their schools as efficiently as possible because they operate in a competitive environment. Their goal is very high pass rates at the lowest cost in order to garner customers while still making a profit. In both places, at least in my experience, their first goal is to train to pass the oral and check ride, and their secondary goal is to impart as much additional training and learning as possible to make their product desirable.

Do Simuflite and/or FlightSafety train as thoroughly as the airlines do (which I suspect is what you were implying)? I don't know since I've never been through a 121program.
Click to expand...
To your last paragraph.


Not even close. 121 training will blow 142 training out of the water and not blink an eye.
 
Certainly they fail people, rarely, but they do. The guy in my initial class years ago failed, but got a re-check the next day and passed. I've known a number of other guys that failed. CAE will do everything they can to prepare you, but it's not a certaintly
 
I find the instructors generally know if the person will pass. If they don't think so, they won't send you to the ride to fail. They'll just send you home/call the company and see if they want more training.
 
CAE: I went to initial with a person who had previously been a captain on another jet/different company. Tons of turbine time and that persons flying was atrocious. I mean so far behind the plane I would question if that person knew which way the nose was pointed and which direction went forward first. I did all I could to help but I finally saw my efforts were better spent just focusing on myself (this was my first jet type). I got my PIC type but the other person got a SIC type only (barely). The person didn't pass IOE and never made the line. Don't know what happened after...
 
brigadeaviator said:
CAE: I went to initial with a person who had previously been a captain on another jet/different company. Tons of turbine time and that persons flying was atrocious. I mean so far behind the plane I would question if that person knew which way the nose was pointed and which direction went forward first. I did all I could to help but I finally saw my efforts were better spent just focusing on myself (this was my first jet type). I got my PIC type but the other person got a SIC type only (barely). The person didn't pass IOE and never made the line. Don't know what happened after...
Click to expand...
You will continuously run into this. After a couple thousand hours tt doesn't mean anything.
 
I might have worked at a place that sent someone to FSI for a LR-35 type and they sent her back home without retraining because it was hopeless. (Not CLA)
 
Went to CAE for Hawker initial and while the class was taught well, I wasn't too impressed with the sim instruction though. I kept getting the "Oh you're doing fine" instead of "Ok, here's what you could have done better". Most of my right seaters were either fumbling through the checklists because they hadn't seen the 700 sim in months, reading/falling asleep during the briefing, or plain just not wanting to be there. I did get one good one though, he liked to teach and was a huge help as I was obviously there to learn.

Went to FlightSafety for the Caravan and every instructor I got had very little to no actual experience in the airframe. I know this is common, but the Caravan? We were in Whichata, you'd think Cessna could get these guys a little stick time on one. They were good teachers, it just made it frustrating when you had very specific questions.

But yeah, the check rides were nothing to get excited about.
 
Last edited:
I did initial and a 6 month PIC check at Simuflite in DFW - I thought it accomplished exactly what it was supposed to which was to supply me with a type rating. Luckily we had a couple of instructors who had considerable time in the airplane which made things a little easier.
At the end of the day they weren't there to trip you up or reinvent the wheel, they simply taught us what we needed to know to pass.
After 450 hours in the seat this year so far I have seen about 5 different issues never discussed or mentioned during training - I don't blame Simuflite for this, they simply did what they were asked to do.

Bp244
 
TwoTwoLeft said:
Went to CAE for Hawker initial and while the class was taught well, I wasn't too impressed with the sim instruction though. I kept getting the "Oh you're doing fine" instead of "Ok, here's what you could have done better". Most of my right seaters were either fumbling through the checklists because they hadn't seen the 700 sim in months, reading/falling asleep during the briefing, or plain just not wanting to be there. I did get one good one though, he liked to teach and was a huge help as I was obviously there to learn.

Went to FlightSafety for the Caravan and every instructor I got had very little to no actual experience in the airframe. I know this is common, but the Caravan? We were in Whichata, you'd think Cessna could get these guys a little stick time on one. They were good teachers, it just made it frustrating when you had very specific questions.

But yeah, the check rides were nothing to get excited about.
Click to expand...
Going to sim school for the turbine suburban cracks me up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top