Sullly Day

[Busher]

No, it implies that anyone can make a mistake on any day and inadvertently bust a pass/fail limit.   I guarantee you that anyone can be placed into a position of failure by a rabid check airman.   I've seen it happen. 

I just showed my co-Captain/Check Airman with 25 years in 121 what you wrote and I won't be able to publish what he said.   But basically he says you're full of something.  He also hated taking Check Rides every time.


Apparently you weren't paying attention then and it must have been a LONG time ago because I've been at this for quite awhile.    I could bust you any time I wanted without any tricks.   It's not hard to do that to someone.   And if you think it doesn't happen you're living in a fantasy world.  Thankfully, I am ethical, empathetic, and realistic and would not do such a thing--even to one of my detractors on this forum.


All the more reason why you do not comprehend the reality of my profession and circumstances.

Well V I am sorry that you work in such a negative environment. "Rabid Check Pilots"; "I could bust you any time I wanted without any tricks. It's not hard to do that to someone"; "He also hated taking Check Rides every time".'

Apparently you were quite right that American standards are different than what I am used to. I have had to issue failure assessments but the goal was always to improve performance. Most improved but a slim few left the industry.

It's my opinion and that of the entire Flight Standards Department i worked in, that the goal must always to enhance and reinforce knowledge and skill. If the entire pilot group does not honestly believe this Mission Statement, then all the money spent on simulator training/check rides is a waste of time and overall flight safety will not be enhanced. There were almost 1000 pilots in the crew base of the Airline I worked at. Sim days were paid like another working day and I enjoyed watching new hire attitudes change from Sim intimidation to a positive opportunity to learn or reinforce skill. And one last thing.. rabid check pilots are as dangerous to a pilot community as are "badge heavy" Captains - they are a clear and explicit example of a failure.

[Vraciu]

Well V I am sorry that you work in such a negative environment. "Rabid Check Pilots"; "I could bust you any time I wanted without any tricks. It's not hard to do that to someone"; "He also hated taking Check Rides every time".'

Apparently you were quite right that American standards are different than what I am used to. I have had to issue failure assessments but the goal was always to improve performance. Most improved but a slim few left the industry.

It's my opinion and that of the entire Flight Standards Department i worked in, that the goal must always to enhance and reinforce knowledge and skill. If the entire pilot group does not honestly believe this Mission Statement, then all the money spent on simulator training/check rides is a waste of time and overall flight safety will not be enhanced. There were almost 1000 pilots in the crew base of the Airline I worked at. Sim days were paid like another working day and I enjoyed watching new hire attitudes change from Sim intimidation to a positive opportunity to learn or reinforce skill. And one last thing.. rabid check pilots are as dangerous to a pilot community as are "badge heavy" Captains - they are a clear and explicit example of a failure.

On this you and I agree.   I have long advocated the position that learning is not enhanced with fear or intimidation.  However, despite my best attempts to assuage the anguish of my clients in advance of giving them a checkride they almost without exception are filled with anxiety. 

In the US a failure on a ride for ANY cause throws up a red flag.   Due to insurance requirements and other factors they can be the kiss of death for a pilot's career.   In the 121 world in particular they can lead to termination resulting in consequences that one never escapes from, especially in this new post-Colgan Air 3407 era.  (The recent Atlas Air crash will only make this worse.)  Part 135 has a limited allowance for retraining depending on the failure, but it is still a jeopardy ride.

You had the proper attitude in wanting to enhance learning.   I am the same way.  Sadly, even attempts by 121 carriers to enhance learning with new "progressive training" cycles (AQP, CQ) have not removed the jeopardy aspects of the endeavor.