Company training - what's enough?

[Flybabe]

I have a question -

How much training are employees in the various companies out there given towards initial and recurrent PPC rides? Feel free to use whatever machines your companies operate.

We all know that pilots are not created equal and some may take a bit more than others, regardless of tenure.

Are you guys seeing 1 hour for recurrent training and then a ride with no re-ride if they flunk, or what? Is training set in stone with no flexibility? I understand that either you make the grade or you don't but I'm wondering about how to achieve an end product that is fair and REALISTIC to everyone involved.

Call me... "just curious".

[rum-runner]

I have a question -

.

Are you guys seeing 1 hour for recurrent training and then a ride with no re-ride if they flunk, or what? .

Call me... "just curious".

That seems a little harsh to me..I guess if they dont like you it is good way to run you off, but if they have any $$ invested in your training, to provide a little more training and another ride would seem logical.. unless you simply cant fly!!!

[Donald]

Company ops manual spells out the minimum standard, as required by TC. The candidate is given this amount of training as a minimum. If more training is required to meet the standard of a ride, then it is scheduled at the discretion of the CP.

If there are an unusual number of people not passing the rides, or requiring extra training, then the CP and training/check captains need to get together and review the training syllabus and methods.

[trey kule]

I can only speak for our company, but here is how we do it.

1. Initial ground school. Formalized and comvers every little thing...like not slamming doors or hooking them up in the wind. Actually looking at de-icing samples.. As a result of breakages, dumb ass actions in the past etc, it is comprehensive.
The initial flying portion, as someone said, has to meet minimums also, but usually takes a little longer. Once PPC's pilots (captains or FO's) are line checked and then fly under supervision

Training courses ( I hate to use the word mini") are on going and also part of bi-weekly meeting where any new issues pop up that can be used as a learning experience.

2. Re current training emphasizes abnormal procedures, as this is what most flight crew forget despite flying the equipment on a constant basis.

As an aside, it is easy to determine the depth of training of new hires..and amazing the thing companies dont teach their pilots that result in the everday abuse of the aircraft.

Lastly, a good training program should be an evolutionary process whereby mistakes are corrected and avoided by inclusion in the training program. I dont know if TC has made changes to the way they allow training programs but not to many years ago they made it almost impossible to set up a proper training program for a 702/703/704 operation.

[just curious]

Call me... "just curious".

No Flybabe, I won't call you that.

As to your question, our initial after groundschool for the frame (20 hours), icing, CRM, DG, Whmis, Polar Nav, High Alt phys, First Aid etc. is 5 hours, followed by a ride. Looking at the otter, (which is a fairly straightforward machine for normal ops), if a candidate is not prepared for a ride, a discussion ensues with the CP and training director.

During this discussion the underlying cause factors are pursued. If it is a question of IFR proficiency, then a recommendation of Sim time is usually the case. Others may simply be fatiqued or intimidated, and a rest, briefing and a few days trying to wind down may be the solution. Some simply do not learn at the same rate, and occaisionally may require a bit more flight training.

A ride follows. Since ride scenarios are not designed to "catch" someone, or trick them, not many people, having gone through all the training, fail the ride.

Some, however, do. say one in, I dunno... 100. Since A) it is rare, and B) the company has now invested in the candidate to the tune of 2 or 3 weeks of effort; an examination of the underlying causes ensues with the check pilot safety pilot, candidate, training director and CP.

Language, cultural values, fatigue, fear, family problems, "rideitus", hearing errors, SOP comprehension, basic IFR skills; are all assessed at this meeting. Sim time, ground study, rest, different check pilot, different training captain, different time of day, and yes, additional flight time are all considered.

If after this the candidate is salvageable, then after all the recommendations are applied, a second ride ensues. Generally to ensure objectivity, with a different check pilot.

Pass? Proceed to line indoc. Fail? Generally, it's time to move on.

In the last decade, I have seen the latter occur a couple of times only.

As a rule, any company with a good training culture has ride success and performance that runs along these lines.

JC

[bezerker]

Hi Flybabe, long time no talk.

I assume you are talking about what we do here in maple syrup land, and not about the guidlines used in the capitalist war mongering state you now call home.

Also I assume that you are talking about single engine 703 operations, as they are the only ones that will be approved for only one hour of reccurent flight training as per the CASS http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/Regse ... 723a04.htm

Is it a single engine VFR PCC that was failed? If a commercial pilot can't pass a recurrent VFR PCC on a single engine plane after being on the airplane for a year or more, I believe they are pretty weak candidates.

If it is an single engine, single pilot IFR PPC that was failed, (and if it was recurrent it would also only be a PCC I believe) well that means that the candidate had over 1000 hrs, and substantial time on type (it's a reccurent + the 50 hrs required on type for the initial SPIFR ride (for passengers)). With that kind of time, the cadidate should be able to pass the ride. If not, they shouldn't be flying SPIFR.

I suspect your real question is how much time/money should a company spend on a weak candidate.

Some will say that once you realize that you are on the wrong road, no matter how far you go, you are still going down the wrong road. There is a minimum standard for each pilot position, whether it is for a lowly PBY instructor or for 787 captain or whatever, the expectation is that you were hired to do the job and you were supposed to come prepared with the skills needed. If there are a lot of resumes on the doorstep why should the company foot the bill to bring you up to the minimum standard required? This method can obviously backfire as everyone probably knows stories of excellent candidates that were washed out because of a bad day.

Others might prefer the Florence Nightingale effect, and prefer to nurture and mold an inexperienced or weak candidate (or by similar methods, i.e. the military: tear down and rebuild) in an effort to create the perfect company pilot. This can be great as there are many things that can make a person a great employee, and they don't all relate to flying skills. This method can also backfire as there are some lesser evolved pilots that never seem to get any better, and you wish that you fired them 5 years ago when they scraped by their first PPC after double the required training hours.

I think the best that can be hoped for is that those making the hire/fire choices have a good sense of determining character and ability in a minimum amount of time. They won't always be right, so unfortunately there will always be good candidates sent elsewhere and there will always be a few idiots that apparently got their licences from a cracker jack box.

In reality, it seems that most people I have seen let go, have had an ongoing issue with management that was no where near resolution. If the CP wore his epaulettes to his wedding, and you hate epaulettes, you will not enjoy your short stay with the company.

[Flybabe]

War mongering... LMFAO

I was mainly interested in some feedback. This is in no way, shape or form related to any experience of mine, personally - I'm just, well.. curious.

[L1011]

{edit}

[co-joe]

I've seen training so bad it was embarrasing to come to the ride...somehow I managed not to fail. I've also been fortunate enough to see the best training money can buy in DFW and I can honestly say that the purpose of good training is not just to get you past a ride. It's to keep you alive.

A week of groundschool and 12 hours in a cat d sim is the way to go for high performance IFR flying. No question. TC sets the minimum and unfortunately the norm in Canada as I have experienced it is to barely meet the minimum. In a few cases I've been the recipient of the old "three hours in the log book eaquals 5 in the plane off you go..."

Is $8500 plus airfare and transportation worth double what 5 hours on type the night before your ride gives you? % 100 IMHO

[Chuck Ellsworth]

A week of groundschool and 12 hours in a cat d sim is the way to go for high performance IFR flying. No question.

Exactly.

Conversely the best example of meeting the minimum that TC requires can best be demonstrated by reading the report on how that TC King Air flew the approach into Edmonton with a load of TC's finest on board.

[Dog]

Initial training flight times (I think)
Beaver: 3 hours
Goose: 10 hours, 50 hours line indoc
Beech 200, 1900: 5 hours, 20 hours line indoc
Saab 340, Shorts 360: 12 hours pf, 12 pnf sim (typically) , 3 t/o in the plane and 50 hours line indoc.