The PPC and its true worth.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:02 am

If I were needing a pilot to fly for me on any airplane that falls under TC's PPC requirement here is how I would rate the PPC.

I would look at the PPC as having very little value in determining if the pilot who holds it actually has the flying skills I am looking for.

Any pilot can take X number of hours training on an airplane and pass a PPC, that does not mean they are good pilots.

Cat

greenwich · Post by **greenwich** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:16 am

"Cat"...

Totally agree with you!!

When I got my first PPC I was a low-timer and had no clue what I was doing. It was in a fast piston-twin, and I know for sure if the owners had sent me on a flight alone in IFR conditions I would have killed myself!

The company that I worked for had a graduated system where you start on the ramp and work your way into a piston-twin...right seat! The company would pay for the PPC, but then sit you right seat until they thought you were ready to go left seat (took anywhere from 1 to 2 years).

The rest is history!!

G

Pugster · Post by **Pugster** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:22 am

Hey Cat;

Just a question - but how do you judge flying skills in an interview? Without a "flight interview" of some sort I can't see how you could tap this other than through references. I know quite a few higher-time pilots that really, to be quite honest, suck.

I agree on the PPC - it's a transport thing, and that's how it should stay. It should never have turned into what it is now - a prerequisite to get hired at some businesses.

4green · Post by **4green** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:38 am

i'm probably opening a can of worms with this but-

most companies are proponents of the "hire on attitude, train for aptitude" practice. within reason, you can teach anyone to fly a particular airplane in a certain mission profile. aside from being a convenience/"would be nice" hiring policy, the entre pay to play ppc idea is not so much a question of ability as it is a reflection of the character of the applicant...which most people take as "i don't want to pay my dues and am looking for short cuts"

ie- who would you want to invest your money into as an employer?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:12 am

The problem with PPC's is they are for the benefit of ensuring that TC has more paper work for make work for people unable to work productivly in industry.

Much like TC's mantra of using the word " Safety " in every conceivable place the PPC is window dressing.

This poorly thought out requirement is a financial millstone around the necks of both owners and pilots, with very little benefit to " Safety ".

The best person to determine the skills level of a pilot is the company Chief Pilot and one of the benefits of having a chief Pilot determine who flys their airplanes is that she / he does not need a "one size fits all" time requirement for the PPC ride.

Some pilots need one hour on say a Navajo to fly it safely, some may need far more and some will never be satisfactory and are forced to find a job in TC telling us how to do something they are incapable of doing.

Before everyone jumps all over me for the above I am very aware that there are good pilots working for TC, unfortunately they have no real input into policy making and like us are forced to follow the dictates of idiots.

I have another suggestion for TC.

Send your skills challenged TC inspectors to me and I will try and teach them how to fly.

That ought to be a full time project for me.

Cat

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:39 am

As an FO, I'd rather hire a guy I can spend eight hours in a cockpit with. I can train anybody to fly...hell, we can all fly...right?
And I beleive that companies who will only hire guys with PPC's are the SCUM OF THE EARTH!!!!
And, if I may point out, all the really stupid things that have resulted in aircraft accidents, and deaths, have been commited by pilots WITH PPC'S!

just curious · Post by **just curious** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:44 am

The best person to determine the skills level of a pilot is the company Chief Pilot and one of the benefits of having a chief Pilot determine who flys their airplanes is that she / he does not need a "one size fits all" time requirement for the PPC ride.

While this is true of a good Chief Pilot, or their designated training pilot, the sad truth is that this is the result of allowing bad chief pilots to exist. About the time you left the Austin Airways world, chief pilots were emerging in companies who did not have the will or personality to tell owners when to head in. As a result, training was minimal, or pencil-whipped. The assumption that 'anyone could do this' ran rampant. As a result, people that couldn't make the cut were crashing with great regularity. I could name some of the companies, but it doesn't matter since their lack of training and checking caused them to have crashes serious enough that they are long gone. They were companies that you would just look at and shake your head.

Northern Ontario is still littered with the carcasses of the aircraft they wrote off.

While the PPC system can be time consuming, TC is mostly out of it now. Check Pilots, just like back in the day, are the norm these days. In fact, with us, with just shy of 200 drivers, probably not much more than a dozen drivers are given a TC ride, and most of them are either the annual CCP check flight, or a monitor of the CCP's ability to assess.

While nobody rational enjoys check rides, ours tend to be realistic assessments of one's ability to shoot an approach where accuracy is a real requirement, under the conditions of 'a really bad day at the office'. Pretty much everyone learns something new on a given ride.

I suppose the difference between a good or bad chief pilot or company is this: Even if the PPC was not a requirement, once a year everyone on our company would have a flight with a training pilot to torture them; and the training pilots themselves would ride with a check guy on the line for a week to see if they fly the way they train.

I can tell you quite frankly, I would rather just have the PPC, than the guy from the big city riding me for a week with a clipboard and a big red pen. But I get both

. The ones that benefit from this are the guys down at the bottom row of the org chart.

TC's role in PPCs for the most part is to ensure that if a box is checked, a new licence is printed and mailed. And to make sure that Check pilots can spell. It's our job to ensure that they are not vindictive dishonest or inept.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:02 am

J.C. :

You and I are basically in agreement on this subject.

I to remember the gradual down hill slide in the quality of some chief pilots who were " window dressing" for crooks who owned flying businesses.

Correct me if I am wrong, but going back to those days who was supposed to overlook the quality of the chief pilots?

Part of the problem started when we tried to get TC to interceed for us when we went to them with justified complaints about these crooked operators, generally politics skewed the playing field and those who complained about crooked owners were ignored, and if found out blackballed by the good old boys club of operators.

There is no "magic" answer to these issues, all we as individuals can do is try our best to do the job safely, then live to a ripe old age and enjoy what is left of life after airplanes and helicopters.....

And we both know who were the crooks in Ontario that lived of the misery of others, I personally detest them to this day.

But there were good ones to like Jack Austin in Ontario and Facteau in Quebec and George ********* to name a few.

Cat

canadian_bacon · Post by **canadian_bacon** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:38 am

The PPC is not an accurate reflection of actual pilot flying habits. It is only a 2 hour snap shot that is the same every year. No surprises...a hold, a couple engine failures, what is Vmc?

What does this accomplish? Sure you can be a little creative but the big question I have is how does this person handle issues while flying on the line? The only way to do that is to evaluate each crew member all the time. A good company will have the necessary checks and balances in place to keep a good picture of company flying habits and adherance to SOPs, etc. This will identify problems while they are small and manageable, rather than waiting a year until a PPC ride to identify a problem.

PPCs can also be used a tool to identify weak areas in company training. If five pilots have problems with hold entries, coincedance?

It all depends on how the PPC is used, and whether or not the company takes an active role during the rest of the year.

centerstored · Post by **centerstored** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:33 pm

No offence CAT, but that is another load of $hit rant on TC. How else do you expect them to maintain standards??? Do you have another method besides the dumb one you just provided? Yeah, so most of the PPC exercises are done once a year, but do we really want to eliminate TC?? They are the necessary eyes looking in on our operations to keep our managers honest.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:18 pm

No offense taken centerstored.

Yes there is a better method to maintain pilot skills standards, remember a PPC has only one focus, the slills level and knowledge of individual pilots.

A better method would be to go back to allowing the chief pilot to ensure that his /her pilots are up to standard.

Where did you get the idea that I am suggesting we get rid of TC?

TC is the regulator and as such would far more efficient out in the field doing random assesments on the "culture" and adherence to regulatons and profficency of the industry as a whole.....

What do you think we have chief pilots for?

Maybe I am dumb as you suggest but I've been dumb for a very long time in aviation.

With regard to TC keeping " OUR" managers honest my point all along has been that as long as TC protects dishonest managers within their own ranks how can they fairly and objectively regulate? And how good a job do you feel TC did with the managers of the company that employed the pilot that was just charged with a criminal offense?

One more question, have you ever been a chief pilot?

Cat

Right Seat Captain · Post by **Right Seat Captain** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:08 pm

I posted this in another thread, but I'll put it here too...What do you think of this idea?

TC should install a regulation requiring companies to PPC their own pilots, regardless if they already had a current PPC from another company. Not only would it benefit the industry in general, it would make more paperwork for TC, which they seem to like. It would also ensure that the pilot is current with their current company's SOPs.

centerstored · Post by **centerstored** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:25 pm

Exactly my point CAT...that's already what responsible CP's do. They already decide who is fit to fly their AC on the line. I don't like the PPC either, but unless we had a TC inspector fly line checks all the time, it's a necessary evil.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:57 pm

O.K. humor me a little on this one Centerstored.

We as pilots and individuals are products of our enviorement, culture and experiences. I personally have opinions and believes that are ingrained from my experiences part of which were formed many decades ago when flying airplanes was not so ridgidly structured and regulated. We did not have reams of regulations and policies that are beyond anyones ability to research and keep up with. Not to mention these regs are written in such a way and with so many sub sections that their real meaning is almost impossible to figure out.

You say that PPC's are a necessary evil, O.K. maybe they are, however for decades we in another era flew in a far more demanding enviorement on aircraft that were poorly equipped and not nearly as reliable as todays modern aircraft. Many of us managed to aquire tens of thousands of hours accident and violation free.

We did not have PPC's mandated in a calander time frame yet somehow we managed to get the job done and if pilots were not to a standard they were let go. This was generally the decision of the chief pilot.

Maybe our safety record was inferior to the pilots of today? I really can not answer that question because I have not seen any comparative evidence to make such a determination.

Anyhow maybe I am wrong, maybe the PPC is an improvement, but why or how did we get to a situation where pilots are milked by unscrupulous operators aided and abetted by TC's rules?

I am not trying to be closed minded on this, I am just frustrated thinking about it.

Remember I am not affected by this requirement as I no longer have the need to work for a Canadian company.

Hell, on my next birthday I will be seventy not much fear of my being grabbed by some company willing to PPC me on their newest turbine zoom machine.

Cat

golden hawk · Post by **golden hawk** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:55 pm

I think the old adage "One bad apple spoils the barrel" applies here.

Most operators have solid management of their operations, which includes competent Chief Pilots.

Unfortunately, there's the odd one or two that are so poor that the only option is for TC to "police" everybody.

See the recent thread about the pilot facing criminal charges for an example.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:17 pm

Before I go to bed I would like to mention one more thing that I find to be impossible to come to grips with.

It is evident from my own experience in this business that these companies are well known and almost every pilot you talk to knows about how they break the law almost as if it did not exist.

All these pilots know that if you fly for these companies you will be intimidated by the owner/ owners to break the rules.

If this is so well known by the pilots and engineers, why is it that TC is not also aware of this??

Come on someone explain that to me.

Cat

sprucemonkey · Post by **sprucemonkey** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:49 pm

Because Cat, we take the 180 to churchill falls and go fishing for the day while TC looks at the books for the 180......the next day, we take the BN2 to Nanuk for the day and TC looks at her books. NEVER did they consider that the bolts were falling out as we went fishing for the day, nor could we give a shit since someone was right on our heels to take that job and log that precious PIC time. Makes me sick now but that 's how all pilots have made this industry to date.

Big_Oaf · Post by **Big_Oaf** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 7:39 am

Cat Driver wrote:however for decades we in another era flew in a far more demanding enviorement on aircraft that were poorly equipped and not nearly as reliable as todays modern aircraft. Many of us managed to aquire tens of thousands of hours accident and violation free.

This is true, however remeber that in those days the skies were not as congested as they are today....and they are only getting worse.

Like all things the PPC is there to define a standard that everyone is supposed to live up to. This doesn't mean your a great pilot but at least you know something. Reminds me of written and flight tests marks. You require 80% on the written. correct me if im wrong but the numbers aren't important here. Who really cares whethert you know 80% of the info. You should know everything inside and out. But once again the standard does not reflect this. Therefore people who shouldn't, end up making it through and into an aircraft. Pharmacists require 100% on their exams, mabey TC should change the testing standards.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 8:51 am

Big Oaf.

O.K. lets look at this closer.

True the skys are more crowded today. However most IFR flights are accurately gided by very accurate nav aids and led by the hand by air traffic controllers using radar.

We used dead reckoning and maps ( Maps in those days had areas that were marked no accurate data avaliable ) When IFR the most accurate nav aid we had was the ADF. For heading information in areas of compass unreliability we used celestial navigation.....crowded skys was the least of our concerns.

Now back to my original post, I am arguing that the PPC is not an accurate measure of a pilots skills.

During the time we flew with poor equipment and nav aids we still had to pass a yearly proficiency check with TC to renew our instrument ratings.

Whereas today If I were flying for operator A on a Navajo then they bought a Cessna 310 I would have to do PPC's on both, my argument is what was wrong with the chief pilot determining who is competent?

Cat

golden hawk · Post by **golden hawk** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:25 am

Cat;

I agree that the PPC is not an accurate measure of a pilot's skills, and you know my thoughts on the matter from our previous thread.

Not to defend TC, but I think the objective is to ensure pilots meet a bare minimum standard.

As far as their maximum standard, this is not determined from the PPC.

It's akin to having everyone high jump over a 3' bar. How high each individual can jump is unknown from this.

And, I think we both agree that a Chief Pilot is well qualified to be 'setting the bar' for each organization, usually higher than 3'.

Just my humble thoughts

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:52 am

What I am really driving at is the need to PPC on each airplane you fly for instance a Piper piston twin and a Cessna piston twin and so forth.

It is this policy that makes it a feeding ground for the sharks who eat up the young pilots money, for no real net gain to the pilots.

Cat

golden hawk · Post by **golden hawk** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:03 am

Cat,

Good point - interesting that there's a blanket type rating under 12,500, but separate PPC's eh?

just curious · Post by **just curious** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:45 am

Maybe our safety record was inferior to the pilots of today? I really can not answer that question because I have not seen any comparative evidence to make such a determination.

Anyhow maybe I am wrong, maybe the PPC is an improvement, but why or how did we get to a situation where pilots are milked by unscrupulous operators aided and abetted by TC's rules?

Maybe back in the day the accidents caused as a result of a human goof was the same, about 70%. The percentage of mechanical failures, (when DC3's 4's C46's and beech 18's dropped out of the mix- with apologies to Snoopy

) droped substantially. The problem is this: back in the day who operated in say Northern Ontario circa 1965? Austin, and a much smaller version of: Wings, OCA, Bearskin, Superior Airways, and Walsten (Smaller as in a 180/Norseman & maybe a Beech 18). Across the whole damned north, above the Trans-Canada.

Now there are: maybe 5 in Red, 3 in Pickle, 5 in YXL, 2 in YHD, 5 in YQT, 2 in YQK, and who kows how many in the NE. Not all of them across the north will have a chief pilot who can tell his boss when to pull his head out of their ass.

So the answer to your When did we get....? was right aroud 1983 when the industry started to deregulate.

Now back to my original post, I am arguing that the PPC is not an accurate measure of a pilots skills.

During the time we flew with poor equipment and nav aids we still had to pass a yearly proficiency check with TC to renew our instrument ratings.

Whereas today If I were flying for operator A on a Navajo then they bought a Cessna 310 I would have to do PPC's on both, my argument is what was wrong with the chief pilot determining who is competent?

A PPC is essentially an IFR ride with specific limitations emergency questions for the machine. So not a big deal if you drive it all the time.

The reason I am dead against CPS getting a blanket grouping for things like the PA31 C310 example you used, is a crash in Tuk in 92. The company hired a good driver, and his PPC was grouped for an Islander PA31, since that was what they ran. Good idea, except the rudder trim runs opposite. End result, engine fail, night in the arctic, low stratus, no lights on the horizon, more timme spent in one than the other, 7 dead. If the company ha spent the time with the CP doing the training as you suggest, they would still be around being a pain in my ass... bu they're gone.

turbo-prop · Post by **turbo-prop** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:03 am

I agree with you guys that their are some bad pilots out there. But it should be the job of the training pilot that recommends the guy for the ppc that should be harder on the individual and make sure he is ready for the ride and is capable of learning after and not killing somebody in the process.

snaproll20 · Post by **snaproll20** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:12 am

A very interesting, actively stimulating thread!!!
Tks for putting it up, Cat.
I worked for an owner years ago who always said....forget TC, the Insurance rates will take care of the dangerous owners.
Also, the Pilot Proficiency Certificate, relating to a certain type of aircraft was (it seems to me,) brought in to familiarize pilots with the eccentricities of different aircraft (rather than a blanket PPC under 12,500.) (Where are those damned fuel tank change-over levers???)
I complained often and bitterly to Inspectors that they distorted the PPC to a basically IR ride, instead of a "type" proficiency.
It always seemed to me that a PPC and an IR ride are two different things. Obviously, doing both on the same ride makes sense, but the focus is now more on the IFR than the PPC.
When I was (successfully) responsible for pilot safety, any rides I conducted often had an unexpected requirement to test the pilot's knowledge and skills with the aircraft.
Yes, we need a standard, perhaps the PPC is it. It still devolves to the Company and the Chief Pilot to ensure any pilot on staff is safe, or else have the moral fortitude to send them on their way.
Interesting, isn't it?.......The whole thing.