Maybe the 9E trainers can answer this: Why is it that at 9L the 9E transiitions are so vocal about complimenting our training department by consistently verbalizing the clear differences in philosophy to that of the 9E training dept?

Our training contains some tricky situations, many crashes, hard scenarios and flat out tiring SE procedures. The crashes are not intended to defeat the student but to help them learn.

Many of the Jet transitions fly with their feet on the floor and practically roll the planes over during single engine ops and fly completely uncoordinated during steep turns and even regular profiles. Their comments always center around what a heavy airplane the Q is on the controls. These weak spots are focused on and by the time they get to their Checkride they are fixed. The XJ SF340 transitions have no problems with the controls but are a skosh weaker on the automation. Those points are focused on, fixed and by the time they arrive at their check ride, they are ready.

That is called training. We set them up for success not gotcha-ology which seems to be the order of the day at 9E training. As if the 200 is such a complex and difficult plane compared to the Q. Give me a break. There have been many extra sessions required because of not being quite ready for the checkride, but candidates are not signed off if they are not ready and the low fail rate bears that out.

The transitions say they like the Jet better then the Q, and that the Q is a much more difficult plane to learn and to fly. I hear the 200 is very responsive on the controls and the logic of the Collins FMS is very intuitive.

Any examiner or Check Airman or even instructor at CJC could fail a 9E transition at any time. We control the scenarios, have thousands of hours in the airplane and know exactly how to distract students and put them in unrealistic traps. Those types of scenarios are strictly forbidden by our management as stated at instructor meetings and fleet advisory conference calls. They are a waste of valuable sim time and deflating to the students confidence. Deflated confidence never equals safety. Failures are tracked. They are viewed as weaknesses in the training. Solutions to address those weakness' are discussed and the training is adjusted accordingly. The whole system is based on students being customers and their success and good training being our product.

I'm not saying its perfect, but philosophically, it is the right direction to produce safer, more efficient and happier pilots who will safe and successful on the line.