Primary Checkride Failures haunting me after 2700 hours ...

Re: Primary Checkride Failures haunting me after 2700 hours

Hey Sea,

If you wind back the clock, FOs had to fly with "God-Complex" captains who thought they were infallible due to their perfect check-ride histories and 20/20 vision. I heard they were a real pleasure to fly with.

I work in a training department and think that this is all complete nonsense. Airlines should have vigorous hiring processes, including a technical written/interview and a simulator evaluation. How someone did on their GA check rides may or may not come into play depending on the individual's background. If our primary training system in this country was completely standardized, I'd be more inclined to take GA failures seriously. However, in our land of inconsistent DPEs and pilot mills, you've got to be kidding me.

J.
 
Re: Primary Checkride Failures haunting me after 2700 hours

cmill said:
I'm sure everyone 121 company has data to show a number of things. But i defy any of them to show a 500 hour pilot with zero failures is more capable than a 5000 hour pilot with three failures.
Click to expand...

Completely agree.

Being successful in the sim also has very little to do with being successful on the line without the requisite experience (or a low-timer with good SA) . I can teach practically anyone to hit "NAV," whereas I can't teach the monitor/cross-check skills that come with experience.
 
Re: Primary Checkride Failures haunting me after 2700 hours

C150J said:
Hey Sea,

If you wind back the clock, FOs had to fly with "God-Complex" captains who thought they were infallible due to their perfect check-ride histories and 20/20 vision. I heard they were a real pleasure to fly with.

I work in a training department and think that this is all complete nonsense. Airlines should have vigorous hiring processes, including a technical written/interview and a simulator evaluation. How someone did on their GA check rides may or may not come into play depending on the individual's background. If our primary training system in this country was completely standardized, I'd be more inclined to take GA failures seriously. However, in our land of inconsistent DPEs and pilot mills, you've got to be kidding me.

J.
Click to expand...

So, with all those inconstancies, isnt the most reliable judgement the amount of time, and the type of time?
 
Re: Primary Checkride Failures haunting me after 2700 hours

PhilosopherPilot said:
And to answer your questions about 141 checkrides, if you were going to get a temporary airman certificate if you passed (new certificate or rating), that is a checkride as far as we are concerned. A failure then counts.
Click to expand...

So, even if you don't get a new certificate or rating until you complete the Instrument course, AND the Commercial course, AND the Multi-Engine course, only the stage check at the end of the Multi-Engine course would count? Considering most other Part 141 schools give you the certificate and rating at the completion of EACH course, that would be rather inconsistent, wouldn't it?
 
Re: Primary Checkride Failures haunting me after 2700 hours

To a certain extent, yes. Trainability should also be evaluated (giving the applicant a specific profile to fly in a sim evaluation), as well as technical knowledge. I'm a fan of experience, but the employer must also ascertain whether or not the applicant's experience was doing the bare minimum (pushing buttons without thinking), or involved self-imposed critique/study and learning (the traits of a professional).
 
Re: Primary Checkride Failures haunting me after 2700 hours

PhilosopherPilot said:
The reason those rules exist is that the data has shown a clear correlation between checkride failures and success in 121 training. Our historical data showed that anyone with more than 2 failed checkrides was a risk, and more than 3 was almost certain to require extra training. Since it costs over $30,000 to train a new hire, the company doesn't want to pay even more.

And to answer your questions about 141 checkrides, if you were going to get a temporary airman certificate if you passed (new certificate or rating), that is a checkride as far as we are concerned. A failure then counts.
Click to expand...

Do you guys ever consider reasons for failures? What I mean is I know that if I was given the opportunity to explain my checkride failures, I think most would agree they were for some "grey" interpretation of the PTS. In fact, now that I have gotten to know some of the inspectors from our local FSDO, I told them how I failed and they all have said I got hosed and they would not fail an applicant for those reasons. 2 out of the 3 that I have were on my CFII and I have been instructing for over 3 years, have a 98% pass rate, gold seal, and a current 141 check airman. I've done everything I can to improve myself and become a better pilot, but if these checkrides that I did when I was 18/19 and 5 years ago mean I'm stuck out of the 121 world forever, then that really sucks.
 
Re: Primary Checkride Failures haunting me after 2700 hours

well, unfortunately, its a policy. A ot of HR people types arent interested in you, they're interested in the liability of the numbers.

Second, count yourself lucky to stay out of the 121 world. I've had more than one person tell me ill never make it 121, and i just said, thats great. Choose your own path.
 
Re: Primary Checkride Failures haunting me after 2700 hours

delmar said:
Do you guys ever consider reasons for failures? What I mean is I know that if I was given the opportunity to explain my checkride failures, I think most would agree they were for some "grey" interpretation of the PTS. In fact, now that I have gotten to know some of the inspectors from our local FSDO, I told them how I failed and they all have said I got hosed and they would not fail an applicant for those reasons. 2 out of the 3 that I have were on my CFII and I have been instructing for over 3 years, have a 98% pass rate, gold seal, and a current 141 check airman. I've done everything I can to improve myself and become a better pilot, but if these checkrides that I did when I was 18/19 and 5 years ago mean I'm stuck out of the 121 world forever, then that really sucks.
Click to expand...
Airlines aren't interested in experienced pilots anymore, they're interested in lucky pilots.
 
Re: Primary Checkride Failures haunting me after 2700 hours

Guys I really am not trying to be mean, just honest.

Given time current policy will change. If your on the outside looking in, you will have to wait.

Fwiw, at colgan 2 failed training events and your gone. You will have at least 1 pc a year, so its not like it gets easier. Keep your nose in the books, and fly the profiles and you will be fine.
 
cmill said:
I'm sure everyone 121 company has data to show a number of things. But i defy any of them to show a 500 hour pilot with zero failures is more capable than a 5000 hour pilot with three failures.
Click to expand...

That is precisely what our data shows. A 500 hour pilot with glass time and advanced jet training breezes through training. They do typically require more OE, but that isn't the costly part of training.

After 6 months on line, you cannot distinguish the two. Plus, the 5000 hour pilots come here with bad habits, which take a lot of time to retrain, most of the time unsuccessfully.

A 5000 hour pilot coming to a regional typically comes here with baggage, poor work habits, poor flying skills, etc. The data is clear. We are far far better off hiring a 500 hour pilot specifically trained to be a glass jet airline pilot. We are still compiling data on the last 600 or so pilots we hired to track attendance, etc. to see what demographic is best even after training.
 
Re: Primary Checkride Failures haunting me after 2700 hours

PhilosopherPilot said:
That is precisely what our data shows. A 500 hour pilot with glass time and advanced jet training breezes through training. They do typically require more OE, but that isn't the costly part of training.

After 6 months on line, you cannot distinguish the two. Plus, the 5000 hour pilots come here with bad habits, which take a lot of time to retrain, most of the time unsuccessfully.

A 5000 hour pilot coming to a regional typically comes here with baggage, poor work habits, poor flying skills, etc. The data is clear. We are far far better off hiring a 500 hour pilot specifically trained to be a glass jet airline pilot. We are still compiling data on the last 600 or so pilots we hired to track attendance, etc. to see what demographic is best even after training.
Click to expand...

Did your company's methodology take into account de-identified ASAP data?
 
Re: Primary Checkride Failures haunting me after 2700 hours

PhilosopherPilot said:
That is precisely what our data shows. A 500 hour pilot with glass time and advanced jet training breezes through training. They do typically require more OE, but that isn't the costly part of training.

After 6 months on line, you cannot distinguish the two. Plus, the 5000 hour pilots come here with bad habits, which take a lot of time to retrain, most of the time unsuccessfully.

A 5000 hour pilot coming to a regional typically comes here with baggage, poor work habits, poor flying skills, etc. The data is clear. We are far far better off hiring a 500 hour pilot specifically trained to be a glass jet airline pilot. We are still compiling data on the last 600 or so pilots we hired to track attendance, etc. to see what demographic is best even after training.
Click to expand...

Thats nice. If this was really the case, then why dont the majors hire 500 hour wonders with no private pilot checkride busts? hmmm?
 
Re: Primary Checkride Failures haunting me after 2700 hours

C150J said:
Hey Sea,

If you wind back the clock, FOs had to fly with "God-Complex" captains who thought they were infallible due to their perfect check-ride histories and 20/20 vision. I heard they were a real pleasure to fly with.

I work in a training department and think that this is all complete nonsense. Airlines should have vigorous hiring processes, including a technical written/interview and a simulator evaluation. How someone did on their GA check rides may or may not come into play depending on the individual's background. If our primary training system in this country was completely standardized, I'd be more inclined to take GA failures seriously. However, in our land of inconsistent DPEs and pilot mills, you've got to be kidding me.

J.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, "blah blah blah." Honestly, I think that interviews should be based on attitude and aptitude, not some nonsense sim ride, or "technical interview." Sim rides and "technical interviews" encourage gouges being made, canned answers, and overly mechanistic approaches to hiring. The best, most comprehensive and challenging interview I ever had was a sit down with the owners of the company where we talked about who I was, my training history, where I was going, and how I viewed the world. I was offered the job, I ended up turning it down, but yeah. They didn't give a damn about what I was flying right now, other than that I was maintaining currency, their primary concern was whether or not I would be a good asset to the company, and whether I was trainable.
 
Re: Primary Checkride Failures haunting me after 2700 hours

TUCKnTRUCK said:
Guys I really am not trying to be mean, just honest.

Given time current policy will change. If your on the outside looking in, you will have to wait.

Fwiw, at colgan 2 failed training events and your gone. You will have at least 1 pc a year, so its not like it gets easier. Keep your nose in the books, and fly the profiles and you will be fine.
Click to expand...
I understand and I appreciate your insight. There just doesn't seem to be a consistent answer as to what constitutes a "checkride failure", which is rather frustrating.
 
Re: Primary Checkride Failures haunting me after 2700 hours

ppragman said:
In my opinion, "blah blah blah." Honestly, I think that interviews should be based on attitude and aptitude, not some nonsense sim ride, or "technical interview." Sim rides and "technical interviews" encourage gouges being made, canned answers, and overly mechanistic approaches to hiring. The best, most comprehensive and challenging interview I ever had was a sit down with the owners of the company where we talked about who I was, my training history, where I was going, and how I viewed the world. I was offered the job, I ended up turning it down, but yeah. They didn't give a damn about what I was flying right now, other than that I was maintaining currency, their primary concern was whether or not I would be a good asset to the company, and whether I was trainable.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with what your'e saying, and fully support a humanistic interview like the one you experienced. However, to verify that your applicants know not to "descend via" on a STAR until cleared to do so can certainly save you a lot of trouble in the future. The current environment in this industry (low pay/low barriers to employment/inadequate primary training) allows unqualified people to say "oh what the hell, I'll give it a shot" and not come prepared nor get what they need out of their initial training. They end up getting hired, passing training, and then leave their flying partners in the wind on a 14-hour bad weather day. If I can whip out an approach plate into a non-controlled mountainous airport (which we fly to), put my finger on it somewhere, and ask "how are you going to fly this approach," I can better ascertain whether or not the applicant was trained to pass a PTS or actually taught. This is certainly an indictment of our GA training program, as a real curriculum and FAIR/thorough DPE should've done all of this to them before sitting across from me. Unfortunately, that's not the case... we have SOME pilot mill guys (not all!) that have flawless records and little knowledge, and others with a bit of experienced and a failed ride or two. I think you know which ones I prefer.


Don't get me wrong, you make a great point: personality has a LOT to do with being a good pilot!
 
Re: Primary Checkride Failures haunting me after 2700 hours

SIUav8er said:
Thats nice. If this was really the case, then why dont the majors hire 500 hour wonders with no private pilot checkride busts? hmmm?
Click to expand...

The majors hire a different pilot. Regionals hire pilots who typically do not have 121 experience, while the majors typically only hire those with 121 PIC or military time. Interestingly, one major will NOT interview pilots with more than 4000 hours 121 PIC time because the data shows that they are bad investments as well. (They have bad habits, etc. etc.) The sweet spot for them seems to be the 500 - 2000 121 PIC time.

For us, the sweet spot seems to be 800 - 1000 hours, with the majority of their time being flight instructor time. Of course, someone with 121 CRJ time is nice, but you really have to be careful with that demographic. (Why are they not employed somewhere else? Why aren't they applying to a major? etc.)
 
Re: Primary Checkride Failures haunting me after 2700 hours

C150J said:
Did your company's methodology take into account de-identified ASAP data?
Click to expand...

No, because the data is de-identified. We cannot link up the hiring/training records with ASAP data for that reason.
 
Re: Primary Checkride Failures haunting me after 2700 hours

delmar said:
Do you guys ever consider reasons for failures? What I mean is I know that if I was given the opportunity to explain my checkride failures, I think most would agree they were for some "grey" interpretation of the PTS. In fact, now that I have gotten to know some of the inspectors from our local FSDO, I told them how I failed and they all have said I got hosed and they would not fail an applicant for those reasons. 2 out of the 3 that I have were on my CFII and I have been instructing for over 3 years, have a 98% pass rate, gold seal, and a current 141 check airman. I've done everything I can to improve myself and become a better pilot, but if these checkrides that I did when I was 18/19 and 5 years ago mean I'm stuck out of the 121 world forever, then that really sucks.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, as it stands now you cannot get the interview to explain your failures. The best thing I could recommend is that you get to know someone at the airline you want to apply to. Set up an appointment to talk to the hiring manager personally. That might give you a chance to get some insight into what you could do to get hired.

Guys, in a year or two, all of this isn't going to matter. The regionals are going to be hurting for pilots so badly that we will hire anyone with the time who looks like they might be able to stay alive during the training. Hang in there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top