Maximum Number of Checkride Failures?

C150J

C150J

Well-Known Member
Just thought I'd rustle the bushes here.


Should there be a limit on how many checkrides one can fail before becoming employed as a professional pilot? How do failures work in military flight training? If you are a continually poor performer in college/graduate school, you are put on probation and eventually expelled if you don't pick up the slack. Where is our system of checks and balances?


That being said, I think the Colgan CA is getting a bad rap by the media. Three primary failures and two PC failures (both of which were initial PCs, and one an upgrade ride) isn't great, but our primary training system is so inconsistent that it wouldn't surprise me if there are some GREAT people with similar records.


I just don't know how you delineate training performance and experience. I'd argue that the 250 hour guy who failed his commercial by screwing up a lazy 8 might be a fantastic captain at 4,000 hours. I would also argue that the guy who continuously fails rides well into his 121 career may need a 709 ride (so to speak).


I think one major problem is how regionals now hire. In the boom of 2007, our company didn't require a sim ride or a technical interview, and I have seen (first-hand) the reports associated with some of these guys and their inability to understand basic IFR operations.
 
When you fail something, don't they go over with you, so that you learn your mistakes? I thought that makes you a better pilot, but I guess not.
 
SFCC/UND said:
When you fail something, don't they go over with you, so that you learn your mistakes? I thought that makes you a better pilot, but I guess not.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, which is why I stated my assertion that there are FANTASTIC pilots out there with less-than-perfect training histories. However, if you are repeatedly making decisions that compromise the safety of flight, what happens when no examiner/instructor is there to fix the problem?


I have learned exponentially more from my mistakes than I have my successes. I'm just trying to get a discussion going regarding how to tell if you're making a mistake due to inexperience/a gap in training or when you're making one because you continually can't draw the correct conclusions.
 
I want to add that I don't necessarily think any of this is the case with the Colgan stuff. Passing initial rides and upgrade rides always have a high failure rate.
 
I think that a certain number might be acceptable.

While I'm certainly not the one to throw another pilot under the bus, but we have standards for a reason.

Meet or exceed them, and you're fine. But if you lack the knowledge, skills, and abilities to meet them - then the training department needs to pinpoint why you're lacking. Then, if after a second attempt, you still do not meet the standards it might be best that you start looking for another job.

After completing some RFT back in December, I was relaxing in the lobby at the Atlanta FSI location.

ASA was in the process of training all of our ATR pilots in the jet. Unfortunately for one ATR captain, he failed his CL-65 type ride - twice. One more failure, and the company had to seriously contemplate sending him to the street while the FAA evaluated their own decision on if they needed to determine any certificate action for his inability to fly within ATP standards. That said, the company convinced him to take the CL-65 ride as an SIC, pass it - and then fly the CRJ-200 or 700 (whichever he could hold by seniority) for a period of at least 6 months not to exceed any longer than after the first upgrade class began. Well, he made the right decision and ended up taking the SIC ride and passing the first time. Now, he's an FO again - for much longer than 6 months since ASA isn't upgrading anyone, but he'll be in the first upgrade class when they do began.

So, any more than 3 failures, I seriously think the company should be able to release a pilot.

Note that my emphasis is placed on failing FAA 121 / 135 checkrides, not checkrides associated with primary flight training for certificate or rating issuance. If you have the money to dump into flight training and you want to keep pissing away funds while you fail checkride after checkride, that's fine by me. But I don't think it's all that bad for a company to have the ability to send a pilot out to the street if they lack the KSAs required to operate in their respective environments.

It goes without saying that certain safeguards must also be in place to protect the innocent from being wrongfully terminated. That means 100% recording of data of sim events, storage for up to 3 years, use only at the discretion of the individual pilot. Meaning that the company should not be allowed to sift through the data to find nit-noid nonsense to try to fire pilots on. The data should / can be only use in clear cases of determining if an individual failed to meet a certain standard.
 
If there are chronic failures at the 121 level I think the company and FAA should take a long hard look at an individual to see what's wrong. If they can be helped and can operate safely they should be kept on board.

It's the job of every training department to ensure their pilots are operating safely and proficiently. A pilot gets 120' off on a steep turn and corrects that's not an issue. Now if a pilot makes several poor decisions, loses situational awareness, and crashes due to those poor decisions we're looking at a completely different ballgame.

And to stir up the pot a bit, unions will often defend people who simply don't belong in the flight deck to the bitter end.
 
EDUC8-or said:
And to stir up the pot a bit, unions will often defend people who simply don't belong in the flight deck to the bitter end.
Click to expand...

I think defend is the wrong word.

Every pilot shouldn't feel pressured to resign because the company tells them "You screwed up, resign or we terminate you."

So, instead, there are safeguards in place. Such as an appropriate investigative process that gets to the facts and reality of whatever the situation may entail.

That said, sure, some pilots who shouldn't be in the cockpit are still in the cockpit, but that's not because the union said so - it's because the conclusion of an investigation found that they were not a risk to the company, themselves, fellow crew members, or the flying public and thus the company didn't have justifiable cause to terminate them. In other words, they met the standards as defined by the company. Even if their peers think otherwise.

I'd hope everyone can appreciate such a measure that protects their career and their long term prospects of making a living playing this game. It's not something that should be taken lightly and is in place to protect the innocent, not to shelter the guilty.

If a pilot can't perform to standards - they need to be out of the cockpit until they can.
 
surreal1221 said:
ASA was in the process of training all of our ATR pilots in the jet. Unfortunately for one ATR captain, he failed his CL-65 type ride - twice. One more failure, and the company had to seriously contemplate sending him to the street while the FAA evaluated their own decision on if they needed to determine any certificate action for his inability to fly within ATP standards. That said, the company convinced him to take the CL-65 ride as an SIC, pass it - and then fly the CRJ-200 or 700 (whichever he could hold by seniority) for a period of at least 6 months not to exceed any longer than after the first upgrade class began. Well, he made the right decision and ended up taking the SIC ride and passing the first time. Now, he's an FO again - for much longer than 6 months since ASA isn't upgrading anyone, but he'll be in the first upgrade class when they do began.
Click to expand...

Nothing new. I was one of the first FOs trained on the CL-65 when ASA first got them. We had several captains fail the type ride. It was commonplace to see captains riding in the right seat for 6 months or more while they learned the airplane. We even had an unoffical SQFO thing going where new captains going to JFK for the first time were paired with the high time FOs (:hiya:)
I even had a zero flap emergency one time where the captain decided that it was better for me to land the plane on an icey runway in CLE with 500 hours in type than for them to try it with only 26 hours.

But they were all required to eventually pass the type, and you're right, three busts and they were done with ASA.
 
I agree with Josh on this one.

In the "gathering licenses" phase, flying GA airplanes, each and every checkride is unique. Yours truly has a collection of the salmon slips for several checkrides in this phase. It was all minor things (one each time as the rest of the ride was OK), I'd go back and do the one maneuver again, and get blessed. And as someone else brought up, the standards under Part 61 can vary leading to a Notice of Disapproval.

However, in the 121 phase, it's the same checkride all of the time. There is truly nothing new that you learn, as far as manuevring the aircraft. Granted everyone can have a bad day, or bone a maneuver you haven't done in 6 to 12 months (I haven't yet inspite of the less than exemplary early checkrides over the course of the last 10 years or so), and a retrain is a retrain. However, if an individual as a record of failure at the 121 level, and it is a pattern, I think that should be dealt with.

The present company even has a program if there is a failure on a ride. It is in the CBA at our shop, and the pilots take additional rides to ensure that it was, indeed, a bad day.
 
Just wondering at the relationship between checkride failures and accidents. It seems that accidents are more a result of judgment issues and that is not the reason for most checkride failures. Does anyone happen to know of any serious studies of that relationship?
 
Failures of judgment can lead to checkride failures.

Otherwise there would be no checkride failures. People fail checkrides for a number of reasons - but each reason is connected to a poor judgment decision, either related to how to best handle the aircraft in a scenario, not thinking fast enough, not thinking clear enough, or just doing a bonehead action that sticks out like a sore thumb.
 
I really appreciate everyone's insight.

PeterPilot said:
Just wondering at the relationship between checkride failures and accidents. It seems that accidents are more a result of judgment issues and that is not the reason for most checkride failures. Does anyone happen to know of any serious studies of that relationship?
Click to expand...


Good question. I know of several accidents (one fatal) where people with perfectly clean records were involved (one investigation board concluded that overconfidence in ability played a role), but that is definitely anecdotal evidence.

I think the most critical thread in this post is the ability to learn from one's mistakes. I deal with safety issues at my place and we always look to see if there's a trend. If an individual keeps boning up the same thing, it definitely draws attention.

Second, I think employers need to do a better job of learning WHY someone would have a less than ideal record. As with Polar (thank you for sharing, that's very humble!), one little thing on a ride should NEVER be an issue - if you picked yourself back up and learned from it, you're probably even a better pilot. On the other hand, if the individual is busting rides because the DE/Instructor really believes he is a danger in the cockpit, there is an issue. PRIA records do not tell this story (IIRC, unless a "blue ribbon file" is requested, companies won't know your PRIMARY record unless you tell them, which you should), nor do redacted 121/135 training records. Unfortunately, in our litigious world, many former instructors/employers fear for retaliation if they were to voice concerns about one's ability.
 
C150J said:
I think the most critical thread in this post is the ability to learn from one's mistakes. I deal with safety issues at my place and we always look to see if there's a trend. If an individual keeps boning up the same thing, it definitely draws attention.

Second, I think employers need to do a better job of learning WHY someone would have a less than ideal record. As with Polar (thank you for sharing, that's very humble!), one little thing on a ride should NEVER be an issue - if you picked yourself back up and learned from it, you're probably even a better pilot. On the other hand, if the individual is busting rides because the DE/Instructor really believes he is a danger in the cockpit, there is an issue. PRIA records do not tell this story (IIRC, unless a "blue ribbon file" is requested, companies won't know your PRIMARY record unless you tell them, which you should), nor do redacted 121/135 training records. Unfortunately, in our litigious world, many former instructors/employers fear for retaliation if they were to voice concerns about one's ability.
Click to expand...

The first part, I agree whole heartedly with.

I like to think I am someone that learns and improves after flight I do. As I see it, there's really nothing too humble about it. Like many things I talk about on here, it's just something I've had first hand experience with.

I think it's important, too, that our up-and-coming users who have blemishes, like mine, on their records don't give up hope.

There is an extraordinary learning curve in your primary (and by primary I mean all the licenses up to CMEL and MEI) training. With all of the different maneuvers for each ride, unless the candidate is repeatedly failing the basic manuevers, there are not enough similarities to sit down and figure out where the pattern is. Is it always on new material (like this bonehead)? If so, then is that a student issue, an instructor issue or chronic check-itis?

Once you get to the professional level (ATPs and flying multicrew airplanes), there is a steep initial learning curve that levels out quickly. That learning curve is really just learning to make that individual airplane go, as there are no "new" maneuvers to learn.

It is in that repetitive environment where repetitive failures should be scrutinized. Did the nose waggle a bit on a V1 cut, and then a couples years later boff a steep turn? Or is it a failure of getting the airplane in a position to land once a year at the PC?

To someone unfamiliar with all the process, and quite honestly looking from a distance, these failures look the same. However, the one off events are probably an anomoly. It could be a pilot who has good performance, but just had a bad day (most likely) or it could be a marginal pilot who just makes the standards.

This scenario is where a checkpilot must excercise good judgement on the ride. If the ride is tight and the pilot makes a bonehead move, that's probably an anomoly. If most of the maneuvers are just at the limits allowable, and one or 2 maneuvers exceed the limits, probably not an anomoly.

The pilot that repeatedly unsats the same maneuver, well, that's an easy diagnosis.

So, in the professional world, there is really one checkride. You might do it in different airplanes, or the same airplane but a different operator, but there should be no surprise at the manuevers. Once you prove proficiency in the aircraft, there can be a bad day, but there shouldn't be a systemic issue on the pilot's part. However, again, in initial training, are the failures all of one kind (i.e. V1 cut in each airplane), or is it due to the goofy, unique charateristic that can be tough to learn in each airplane?

Next soap box: Perfection in checkrides

This will cause these issues:

1) Pilots that slid through (still will have this) cause they're good people and the individual checkpilot will pass them the give the "You barely made it, now go work hard and get better).

2) Those that are just inside the margins and just barely meet the requirements, and don't realize it.

We probably have more individuals in our professional ranks that already reflect this, but at some point they will get an UNSAT.

At least now, if you get and UNSAT, you can take the tack that you got hosed by your evaluator (bad idea), or you can use it as identifying a weak area you have, and you strengthen yourself as a professional.

Perhaps, at some point, you can debrief yourself on the UNSAT and maybe use that to find other weak areas you should improve on.

I currently have a list of "improvements" I'd like to make about the size of the Manhattan yellow pages. I'd prefer to do it myself instead of letting a checkpilot find it for me.

/half-cocked rant
 
I've never got an unsat (or even a sim stop) on a pt 121 checkride (all 3 of them) but I did fail 3 checks getting my ratings. 2 of them were flight instructor checks (MEI and CFI). Should I be screwed and someone else who didn't bother trying to get his CFIs because he knew he would fail be golden because he only busted his PPL? (1 failure vs 3?)

What about a guy who had to take his stage check over again 4 times but since he's at a pt 141 school with self-examining authority has no failed checkrides?
 
At my company they're pretty strict about failures, at least during initial and upgrade training events. From what I understand you will get 2 tries at the checkride and if you fail on the 2nd one it's "goodbye", for both upgrades or newhires (or at least perma-FO for failed upgraders). They are also pretty good at weeding out weak newhires before they ever even get to the checkrides.

I have no idea how many pink slips it would take for them to never hire you in the first place. I'm sure that all depends on how desperate they are for newhires at the time. Remember the golden rule of regional airline pilot hiring: lower your standards, don't increase the pay.
 
C150J said:
Just thought I'd rustle the bushes here.


Should there be a limit on how many checkrides one can fail before becoming employed as a professional pilot? How do failures work in military flight training? If you are a continually poor performer in college/graduate school, you are put on probation and eventually expelled if you don't pick up the slack. Where is our system of checks and balances?


That being said, I think the Colgan CA is getting a bad rap by the media. Three primary failures and two PC failures (both of which were initial PCs, and one an upgrade ride) isn't great, but our primary training system is so inconsistent that it wouldn't surprise me if there are some GREAT people with similar records.


I just don't know how you delineate training performance and experience. I'd argue that the 250 hour guy who failed his commercial by screwing up a lazy 8 might be a fantastic captain at 4,000 hours. I would also argue that the guy who continuously fails rides well into his 121 career may need a 709 ride (so to speak).


I think one major problem is how regionals now hire. In the boom of 2007, our company didn't require a sim ride or a technical interview, and I have seen (first-hand) the reports associated with some of these guys and their inability to understand basic IFR operations.
Click to expand...
i think we should do it the Japanese way.

you have to meet X hours for the checkride (same as us) BUT you cannot exceed Y hours prior to checkride. if you fail one time it depends on the severity of the failure as to whether or not you can try again. after a 2nd attempt and failure you are pretty much done w/o special permission from the JCAB

this could actually weed out a lot of the bad ones. i am not saying failing a checkride is a bad thing, sometimes you just have a bad day or truly didn't learn as much as you should have fine. retest and get on, but retesting 3, 4, 5 times is ridiculous. Its the FAA way, train and re-train to proficiency.

The JCAB way isn't perfect either though because they know the exact checkride they will be doing before they even start training, so change that up to some randomness and i think we could be onto something.
 
C150J said:
Just thought I'd rustle the bushes here.


Should there be a limit on how many checkrides one can fail before becoming employed as a professional pilot? How do failures work in military flight training? If you are a continually poor performer in college/graduate school, you are put on probation and eventually expelled if you don't pick up the slack. Where is our system of checks and balances?


That being said, I think the Colgan CA is getting a bad rap by the media. Three primary failures and two PC failures (both of which were initial PCs, and one an upgrade ride) isn't great, but our primary training system is so inconsistent that it wouldn't surprise me if there are some GREAT people with similar records.


I just don't know how you delineate training performance and experience. I'd argue that the 250 hour guy who failed his commercial by screwing up a lazy 8 might be a fantastic captain at 4,000 hours. I would also argue that the guy who continuously fails rides well into his 121 career may need a 709 ride (so to speak).


I think one major problem is how regionals now hire. In the boom of 2007, our company didn't require a sim ride or a technical interview, and I have seen (first-hand) the reports associated with some of these guys and their inability to understand basic IFR operations.
Click to expand...

What you've really gotta consider with the Colgan captain, is that he was a Gulfstreamer, flying the 1900, and then failed 1900 initial at Colgan.
 
jtrain609 said:
What you've really gotta consider with the Colgan captain, is that he was a Gulfstreamer, flying the 1900, and then failed 1900 initial at Colgan.
Click to expand...

Not true. I was in initial with this guy and we were all in the Saab. He never flew or trained in the 1900 at Colgan.
 
OK guys, I mostly "listen" in this sub-forum, but I have a question.

When my Grandpa was at TWA (1953 - 1984) they had a zero tolerance for checkride failures (my understanding). They had an up or out type of policy as well. Every FO was sent through upgrade training when they were in their fifth year at the airline - whether their seniority could actually hold Captain or not. If they busted this, they were fired. If they busted a competency check, they were fired. I am wondering a couple things:

1) Do any airlines still have policies like this?
2) When did the airlines start to change on this issue (I think they all used to be similar to TWA.
3) Why did the airlines start to change on this issue? Supply and demand in the pilot ranks? Training costs?
4) Was the old way better?

I tried to post a question along this line in the general forum and was met with crickets, but would love to know. Thanks in advance.
 
jtrain609 said:
What you've really gotta consider with the Colgan captain, is that he was a Gulfstreamer, flying the 1900, and then failed 1900 initial at Colgan.
Click to expand...


I've never heard anyting about this, I've met the guy in IAH, and he was a saab only guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top