Getting rid of unsafe/incompetent pilots

flyer · Post by **flyer** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:37 pm

Seen this for years. Companies love these pilots cause they never leave, therefore, we'll always have them around. I've seen a whole group of fellow pilots put on enough pressure to get the bad pilot to quit but that's about the only way to solve it and opens up the doors to legal problems...

TorontoGuy · Post by **TorontoGuy** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:46 pm

cpl_atc wrote:Further to the various safety discussions that take place on here... Was just reading this accident report that details the fatal crash involving US Senator Paul Wellstone. The accident involving a King Air A100 happened in Minnesota, Oct 25, 2002. It was determined the airplane stalled on approach.

In reference to the quotes below, taken from the Flight Safety Foundation's report on the accident (which is based on the NTSB report), my question is this: What can the industry do to root out and disqualify pilots like those described in this report? I realize they were US pilots, but I don't think it is inconceivable that someone like this pair could also slip through the cracks in Canada.

It seems to me that someone who has consistently demonstrated a lack of competence shouldn't be able to continue flying simply because they finally manage to pass a check ride. This is only one of many reports I've read over the years where the pilots were known to be incompetent before their demise.

Regarding the 55 yr old accident captain:
"A pilot who had flown with the accident pilot soon after he was hired by the company said that he was 'too timid to be a pilot.' Another company pilot said that the accident pilot had a tendency to become distracted."

"An Aviation Charter King Air pilot indicated that he had taken the airplane controls away from the accident pilot during an instrument approach because he could not maintain altitude,' the report said. 'A company King Air copilot indicated that during level flight in IMC, he had to take the controls away from the accident pilot because he allowed the airplane to enter a 45-degree bank and a 1,000fpm descent."

"Another copilot stated that during a flight about two months before the accident, he had to complete an instrument approach for the pilot because the pilot's navigation radio was tuned to an incorrect frequency for the approach and the pilot's CDI was providing erroneous indications for the approach."

Regarding the 30yr old accident copilot:
"Several pilots who had flown with the copilot described him as not assertive and unable to land the airplane without assistance."

"Two pilots stated that the copilot had difficulties with power management when flying an approach and had to be reminded to keep one hand on the throttles and to monitor his power gauges," the report said. "One of these two pilots, who had been mentoring the copilot and flew with him often, stated that this was a consistent problem for the copilot."

http://www.flightsafety.org/members/ser ... _oct04.pdf

There's one piece of information that's seriously missing in the abstracts you've quoted. Did any of these witnesses ever report the pilot's behaviour? Answer that, then you know what route needs to be taken.

looproll · Post by **looproll** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:15 pm

What can the industry do to root out and disqualify pilots like those described in this report?

There are many hacks out there that shouldn't be flying. It's a difficult question to answer. The military has no problem booting people that don't meet the standards. Maybe civilian flying needs a kick in the ass with regards to enforcing standards, even though it might "hurt someone’s feelings"! I don't think transport would think twice about failing someone on a ride for being incompetent, but a company check pilot might have other pressures working that might let the hack slip through the cracks. The hack passes his check rides each year, but in the mean time, other pilots flying with the hack note his incompetence. What would you do?
[/quote]

gr8gazu · Post by **gr8gazu** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:22 pm

Having been a check pilot in past, it has been my experience that CCP's give tougher rides. TC is a little more restricted in what they can and cannot do and I have seen TC pass guys on bloody awful rides.

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:46 pm

I think I have to agree with gr8gazu in that company check pilots will give a tougher ride than TC because the company check pilot usually knows the airplane very well, knows the company SOP's very well and usually knows or even flies with the candidate. In my case, as an ACP, I usually head straight for the "killer items in an airplane type or target a candidates known weakness. Not to fail or embarrass or anything like that but to satisfy myself that the guy/gal is safe.
I fortunatly only had one and he ws asked to resign. I also wimped out and did his ride as a monitor. He passed, barely.

cedar tree · Post by **cedar tree** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:54 pm

gr8gazu is bang on, the CCP often has a lot more input after a ride as they are watching SOP's among various other things TC just does not have interest in. My experience is they are often more critical.

looproll · Post by **looproll** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 5:21 am

then how do the hacks make it through!????

Brint · Post by **Brint** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 5:41 am

This is something I've been thinking about, as we are experiencing a lot of movement. Companies in less than ideal locales, must have a harder time attracting qualified pilots. I wonder how many hacks are getting through training, and JUST passing a ride. Perhaps the company knows he's no ace, but figures, "He probably won't pile it in, and he's all we've got".

There is a difference between just meeting the standard, and having full confidence in one's ability.

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:26 am

looproll wrote:then how do the hacks make it through!????

They end up in Transport Canada, ensuring the propogation of "Hack Pilots"

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:47 am

PPC rides, either by CP's or TC are total bull shit as far as the ability of a pilot goes. It's more the day to day performance that should be the indicator. I know several pilots that truly suck on rides.....but always "bring 'em back alive"!! Pilots should do an hour or two of training every year, but the "PPC" should go the way of the dinosaur! It would also go a long way to prevent pilots from buying the bloody things? The "PPC" is just one more way that TC can keep some "control" over an industry they have long ago lost touch with.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:58 am

After some thought, I can only come up with a couple of pilots who should have maybe, been something else. Maybe three. One is with Air Canada. The other two? One went into engeneering....a really bright guy...but not a pilot...or a race car driver either! The third? Dont know where he went.
My point here is: There are not a lot of "hacks" out there. I've seen some bloody awful rides...done a couple myself....but these guys...always seem to get the job done. Never "swap paint" with the flora and fauna, and dont scare the pax! And really, what more is there to it?

ninjacrumb · Post by **ninjacrumb** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:07 am

I gots to disagree with you Doc. I think rides are a valuable ass covering method, which is what Transport is all about. My remedy for rides is that they should be spontaneous. The candidate shows up for work thinking he/she is just going to Timmins etc. only to find out that they're actually doing a ride. Why should a pilots skills ony shine 1 day a year (or 6 months). The knowledge and skills displayed on a ride should be with us 365 days per year. You want to weed out a hack, use this method.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:17 am

You may have missed my point? Why should a pilot "shine" on a "ride"?? He should shine every day...by doing the job correctly...not by impressing some government office worker, who flys thirty hours a year, and who, very likely, couldn't get the job done themselves? Hey, dont mean to sound like a "know it all", which I am, but thats not the point..LOL! But I know several pilots that truly do "shine" on rides, and realy do suck at flying....way more, than the other way around...honest.

ninjacrumb · Post by **ninjacrumb** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:42 am

I think that's exactly whatt I said, hence doing spontaneous rides. I know pilots should shine every day, but most don't. Thats why the night before a ride there noses are in the books memorizing limitations and vitals, when in reality they should already know these things. If pilots knew that rides were done randomly I bet they'd keep up on the knowledge.
Its easy, leave your SOP in the john so when you're taking a big dump just do some reading. You could evacuate the bowels while you're reading about evacuating an airplane.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:46 am

That's just sick! And the paper just makes it all slide around!

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:46 am

I think I know what Doc means here.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that any ride is going to consist of two dissimilar approaches, one precision and one non. There will be a hold, an engine failure and a S/E approach. You may get a G/A if self induced.

Any monkey can learn by rote. What happens when the shit really hits the fan? Can the guy think on his feet, prioritize and manage a situation? Does he use good CRM to delegate when multiple failures occur? That is the guy I want to be with on a dark and dirty night. I couldn't give a rats ass if he can fly a PPC ride.

This is where LOFT scenarios, instead of PPC rides really shine. The student doesn't know what is coming next and you get a snapshot of how the candidate may react in certain circumstances. I find I always learn something after a LOFT. The PPC teaches nothing and evaluates even less. IMHO

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:51 am

LOFT...that's the ticket....brief on weak points...not a test, but a learning session. No pass/fail....unless you roll it in a ball...then it's a fail?

ninjacrumb · Post by **ninjacrumb** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:20 am

I like LOFT also. Plus its done with a loaded airplane (usually).

However has anyone ever noticed regarding jackass pilots, ie the ones not using checklists or following SOPs or just being idiots always bring their game face with them on a line check? Then as soon as the line check is done they're back to the regular BS. You do the line check expecting to see Eddie the Eagle, instead Group Captain Mandrake shows up.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:36 am

What do you think the same guy does after a PPC ride??

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:29 am

ninja..

..a good chief pilot keeps in the loop 100% of the time.

....a good chief pilot weeds out the undesireables and that is not done by pablum learned PPC's.

LOFT and random rides with your crews is the secret.

TC have only one agenda, cover their asses and collect their pay and retirement money.

Cat

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:02 am

Jazz does lofts one ride, a PPC the next. I think it is an excellent system.

Big Bird Anonymous · Post by **Big Bird Anonymous** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:12 am

There will be a change in the way the PPC is administered by the end of next year (2007). TC will no longer be the ones conducting the ride it will be an ACP/CCP. TC’s role will be strictly to monitor the CCP and the company-training program. If those components are consistently satisfactory, then it will be deemed that the PPC will be a company function.

Some companies will be adapting a system, typically in the simulator, whereby the candidate completes scripted exercises and works on weaknesses until they are proficient in that area. That will be the ride.

The bottom line is that the company must have a solid training program or they will fail that component of the SMS program.

Cat Driver/Jaques Strappe: Maybe your experiences with TC have been one sided to say the least, but I have never had a bad day with any TC Inspector, Super, or Manager in my 27 year career. It has appeared to me that the industry and TC have come along way in the past 10-15 years.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:03 pm

Quote Bigbird:

" Cat Driver/Jaques Strappe: Maybe your experiences with TC have been one sided to say the least, but I have never had a bad day with any TC Inspector, Super, or Manager in my 27 year career. It has appeared to me that the industry and TC have come along way in the past 10-15 years. "

Well Big Bird, that is just wonderful that you have had no problems. I went for 47 years without having a problem with TC.

I live in Nanaimo B.C. and we have one of the worst drug dealer and drug abuser problems in Canada...I have lived here for 26 years and have never personally had a problem with drug dealers or drug users.

So based on your view of how TC operates Nanaimo really does not have a drug problem.

Cat

Big Bird Anonymous · Post by **Big Bird Anonymous** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:04 pm

Frankly, I'm not that interested in discussing personal problems Cat Dude.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:11 pm

" Frankly, I'm not that interested in discussing personal problems Cat Dude. "

Of course Big Bird, when you have a myopic vision of the world around you you would feel that way.

It is your type that I hope gets a good reaming by some power abusing TC official.

Can you explain what you meant by " personal problems " or do you think that you are immune to TC bullies?

Cat

Getting rid of unsafe/incompetent pilots

Re: Getting rid of unsafe/incompetent pilots