Originally Posted by
pitchtrim
Your assumptions are wrong for starters. More importantly I believe the training department is focused on safety first and foremost. If it were about money all these sub par candidates would be getting pushed through. Maybe their standards are higher than yours. You seem to be bothered by the quality of instruction and the percentage of people needing additional training. Perhaps it's not the quality of instruction but the skill set of new candidates that are lacking. For that to be the case you'd be wrong, and I'm willing to bet you won't budge on your viewpoint. Either way when you're sitting in the left seat and someone off ioe abandons controls at 50ft in your lap, you decide if it's the training departments fault or the person who was flying the airplane at the time.
If its the skill set of the candidates, then may I ask how did they pass checkride and make it to IOE so they can abandon control at 50ft to begin with? These "sub par" candidates as you called them, passed system test, CPT, recommended for checkride, passed checkride to get to where they are. They must have fallen through many cracks to be at the control with paying pax. Then may I ask, how is it possible a training dept has so many cracks to begin with? If the training dept is so good like you said, 2 things should happen:
1. These "sub par" candidates should have been long gone before IOE.
2. They are not "sub par" if they make it this far.
The % of people needing additional training is caused by the quality of instruction as I have given many examples before. If I am in left seat and know my FO is fresh out of OE, I will shadow the yoke and if they release someone who would abandon control at 50ft on to the line, then its another crack in the training dept.
By the way, wasn't the capt in the PVD accident a training capt? Why didnt he go around? If the training dept is so concern about safety, should the training capt be setting an example and go around on an unstablized approach?