Pilots in crashes had failed multiple tests

SpiceWeasel

SpiceWeasel

Tre Kronor
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-06-07-regional-pilots_N.htm

In nearly every serious regional airline accident during the past 10 years, at least one of the pilots had failed tests of his or her skills multiple times, according to an analysis of federal accident records.

In eight of the nine accidents during that time, which killed 137 people, pilots had a history of failing two or more "check rides," tests by federal or airline inspectors of pilots' ability to fly and respond to emergencies. In the lone case in which pilots didn't have multiple failures since becoming licensed, the co-pilot was fired after the non-fatal crash for falsifying his job application.
Click to expand...

I don't like where this is going.... we're seeing a decrease in coverage associated with the working conditions and more of a focus on employees. These people also don't seem to understand that failing primary checkrides isn't necessarily that uncommon.... for example if you go for a CFI ticket.
 
cencal83406 said:
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-06-07-regional-pilots_N.htm



I don't like where this is going.... we're seeing a decrease in coverage associated with the working conditions and more of a focus on employees. These people also don't seem to understand that failing primary checkrides isn't necessarily that uncommon.... for example if you go for a CFI ticket.
Click to expand...

Sells more papers. The general public does not care about the working conditions or pay of the average regional pilot, it does not affect them. Now, tell the general public that the pilot of their small regional aircraft may have failed a few check rides and you have them hooked for a few more articles. The details of the failures are not important, all that is important is the combination of the words "Failure" and" Pilot".
 
Well..Hate to be the devil's advocate but...

Crew rest issues being brought to the forefront obviously benefits us crewmembers. It is an issue that needs being addressed and we like seeing it on the front cover.

The fact that pilots are flying around passengers who may not have the aptitude for this career is not something we like being examined. Of course you could say, who am I to determine who's qualified and who's not? I'm just a regular line pilot, so I'm not qualified to make the determination. What I do know is that there has been a need to fill seats in the last years making the cockpit of a regional aircraft accessible to virtually anyone with the money to pay for the training. Training programs that are focused on passing checkrides, laden with safety pilot time to build hours to get to mins to apply for airlines that are hurting for pilots who have likewise lowered their minimums.

I can't say what the industry was like 20 years ago, I wasn't in it yet. Were there as many weak pilots who slipped through the cracks as there are now? I'm sure back then there were some, son's of pilots, ex-interns or whatever who basically had the "right" to the seat. But it seems right now there is a remarkable amount of pilots flying the line who "make it though somehow."
 
. . .and let's think about it a little more in its true perspective. The tests are designed to ensure perfection. From a test perspective, you're eligible to "move on" when you've performed all tasks to perfection (as it relates to the test standards)

So, you either do it to perfection or you do it over. No margin for error. I see nothing wrong in ensuring the standards of pilots are high. Matter of fact, PASSING the test proves the standards are in fact so.

The media, without all the facts, can twist it however they want, but the fact is, when you've passed the test, you've performed all tasks to perfection.
 
I think the difference was at the major level there is a certain quality standard. I haven't jumpseated around up front much but from my experience they are much more professional in the cockpit. "Back in the day" almost all airline flying was done at the major level and the commuters flew 9 seat Beech 99's and so forth. Now transpose that with the CVR's of the Colgan crash and that Pinnacle crash.
 
MFT1Air said:
. . .and let's think about it a little more in its true perspective. The tests are designed to ensure perfection. From a test perspective, you're eligible to "move on" when you've performed all tasks to perfection (as it relates to the test standards)

So, you either do it to perfection or you do it over. No margin for error. I see nothing wrong in ensuring the standards of pilots are high. Matter of fact, PASSING the test proves the standards are in fact so.

The media, without all the facts, can twist it however they want, but the fact is, when you've passed the test, you've performed all tasks to perfection.
Click to expand...
But a computer could be quickly programed to pass a PC. I think everyone would agree there's something else there that a pilot is being paid for, and I bet more money would attract people who are more capable of providing the rest of what it is that a pilot does.
 
cencal83406 said:
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-06-07-regional-pilots_N.htm



I don't like where this is going.... we're seeing a decrease in coverage associated with the working conditions and more of a focus on employees. These people also don't seem to understand that failing primary checkrides isn't necessarily that uncommon.... for example if you go for a CFI ticket.
Click to expand...


So its OK to fail multiple checkrides? I don't think so - maybe 1 or 2 at the most because you had a bad day, but 5? It also shouldn't matter if they're for CFI/Comm/part121 checks - a pattern of failing checkrides is disturbing whether or not its primary or advanced checkrides.

Sorry but I just don't understand this view that its OK to fail checkride after checkride.
 
CTFlyer said:
So its OK to fail multiple checkrides? I don't think so - maybe 1 or 2 at the most because you had a bad day, but 5? It also shouldn't matter if they're for CFI/Comm/part121 checks - a pattern of failing checkrides is disturbing whether or not its primary or advanced checkrides.

Sorry but I just don't understand this view that its OK to fail checkride after checkride.
Click to expand...

Did I say "it is okay in my opinion to fail multiple checkrides."?
Answer: No.

There is a lot more to this guys background than a couple of failed checks. First of all, the facts are skewed, it makes a difference that he failed some primary checks and then some at the regional level. Once he gets to the regional level, yes, it's a bit strange that you can fail it, but everyone has a bad day.

The fact is, if it was "so important", why are the requirements for the checkrides not more strict, in a federal sense, and a company sense?

Our company allows one failure per seat per frame. So if someone was kinda iffy, but they came here in about 97, they could have failed once as FO on SAAB, once as CA on SAAB, once as FO on CRJ, once as CA on CRJ, once as FO on CRJ-900, and once as CA on CRJ-900.

I do realize that usually when you switch aircraft you stay in the seat you were awarded in your previous aircraft, but it would be perfectly "legit" and per our pilot contract to be able to fail 6 checkrides and still hold a CA slot on our 76 seat aircraft.
 
cencal83406 said:
Did I say "it is okay in my opinion to fail multiple checkrides."?
Answer: No.

There is a lot more to this guys background than a couple of failed checks. First of all, the facts are skewed, it makes a difference that he failed some primary checks and then some at the regional level. Once he gets to the regional level, yes, it's a bit strange that you can fail it, but everyone has a bad day.

The fact is, if it was "so important", why are the requirements for the checkrides not more strict, in a federal sense, and a company sense?

Our company allows one failure per seat per frame. So if someone was kinda iffy, but they came here in about 97, they could have failed once as FO on SAAB, once as CA on SAAB, once as FO on CRJ, once as CA on CRJ, once as FO on CRJ-900, and once as CA on CRJ-900.

I do realize that usually when you switch aircraft you stay in the seat you were awarded in your previous aircraft, but it would be perfectly "legit" and per our pilot contract to be able to fail 6 checkrides and still hold a CA slot on our 76 seat aircraft.
Click to expand...

cencal - not trying to put words in your mouth, sorry.

I still think that a person basically flies a checkride like they fly every day, minus a few nervous minutes in the beginning - and a history of failing multiple rides may point toward not having the ability/aptitude to fly airplanes for a living. I realize there were other factors involved with the Q, but I think 5 failed rides is unacceptable, even if they were a combo of primary/part 121 rides.
 
CTFlyer,

Looking at your "About Me" section, I don't see too much 121 experience.

Let's break down some things:

At the primary training (Which I'll say will follow this path: PPL: INST: COMM: MEL: CFI: CFII: MEI), you are tested on new material every time. Anyone can mess up a task on the checkride, as it's still new stuff. You go out once, you get the maneuver "Demo'd", you do it satisfactorily with the CFI, then you practice on your own alot. At somepoint you get tested on that, as well as a glut of other things that are new. A failure and recheck is not a big deal. Really more than your mulligan do over after goofing one task, then that should run up the flag.

In 121, you are not really doing anything new. The same maneuvers, and any 121 pilot can tell you them from rote. If you are moving into a new machine, you can mess stuff up or have a bad V1 cut in recurrent (since you only do that maneuver once every job day hopefully).

A pattern of failures at the 121 level is way different than at the primary level.

I remember sitting in my office one day and getting a call from a pilot that failed the FAA observation and linecheck on an upgrade ride. That pilot had a clean record, never failed a ride before, and had a very hard time dealing with it.

And I saw people that never failed a ride in primary training wash out of 121.

Another guy had a handful of failures (quite literally) in primary training, pass a bunch of types, 121 intial training and recurrent training without any hitches. As a matter of fact, this individual went on to become not only a Captain, but a checkpilot on the line, was working on becoming an APD (basically a DE, but only for the airline) and switched jobs. After a few months at the new job, the Standards Captain approached him to see if he'd be interested in a standards position.

I hope this reaches out to you in a helpful way.
 
Polar742 said:
CTFlyer,

Looking at your "About Me" section, I don't see too much 121 experience.

Let's break down some things:

At the primary training (Which I'll say will follow this path: PPL: INST: COMM: MEL: CFI: CFII: MEI), you are tested on new material every time. Anyone can mess up a task on the checkride, as it's still new stuff. You go out once, you get the maneuver "Demo'd", you do it satisfactorily with the CFI, then you practice on your own alot. At somepoint you get tested on that, as well as a glut of other things that are new. A failure and recheck is not a big deal. Really more than your mulligan do over after goofing one task, then that should run up the flag.

In 121, you are not really doing anything new. The same maneuvers, and any 121 pilot can tell you them from rote. If you are moving into a new machine, you can mess stuff up or have a bad V1 cut in recurrent (since you only do that maneuver once every job day hopefully).

A pattern of failures at the 121 level is way different than at the primary level.

I remember sitting in my office one day and getting a call from a pilot that failed the FAA observation and linecheck on an upgrade ride. That pilot had a clean record, never failed a ride before, and had a very hard time dealing with it.

And I saw people that never failed a ride in primary training wash out of 121.

Another guy had a handful of failures (quite literally) in primary training, pass a bunch of types, 121 intial training and recurrent training without any hitches. As a matter of fact, this individual went on to become not only a Captain, but a checkpilot on the line, was working on becoming an APD (basically a DE, but only for the airline) and switched jobs. After a few months at the new job, the Standards Captain approached him to see if he'd be interested in a standards position.

I hope this reaches out to you in a helpful way.
Click to expand...
Excellent post Martin!:)
 
wheelsup said:
There is a connection. Lower pay will attract lower caliber employees.
Click to expand...

The problem with that thought process is the lower caliber employees think all pilots make 120K and that is why they get into it. It is only once they get it they see the reallity.
 
wheelsup said:
There is a connection. Lower pay will attract lower caliber employees.
Click to expand...

I feel thats a bit of a blunt statement, to a degree I can agree with it however I don't feel its accurate to judge the skill of a pilot by their salary.
 
I've read multiple threads beating this issue to death and have to say that I agree with Polar742 everytime he posts on the issue. During my initial 121 training my sim partner had twice the flight time as me, never took any CFI checkrides, and NEVER failed a checkride, he washed out. He was given multiple chances to pass on different parts of the sim training but just didn't get it. I failed my PPL and CFI initial, never had any hiccup ever in the 121 world on any PC checks or Line checks, knock on wood. Plus, during primary training, there is always the easy examiner, and everyone knows what I'm talking about.
 
MFT1Air said:
Disagree.
Click to expand...

Why? Its true. When the regionals had thier shortages a couple of years ago, did they raise pay to attract more employees? No. They lowered their hiring minimums, hence, attracting less qualified pilots. It isn't a jab at anyone that got hired at 400/20, but its a fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top