At this point, my career is over. I have nothing to lose. The only reason I am even posting any of this is so it could perhaps help others.
Originally Posted by
Viking6
Sorry to hear about your training experience at SY. I’ve heard the switch to AQP has been rough, but having the majority of a class fail one item is ridiculous. Sounds like they need to calibrate the Check Airmain and instructors. Are they hiring pilots with no turbine time?
I am not sure. I do believe they hire pilots with no turbine time.
Originally Posted by
dera
You just described a few non-retrainable events. Sounds like the check airman was doing a good job failing you.
Thanks for the kind words! Not all the scenarios I described were from my checkrieds, but from what I heard they were failing others as well. I guess you are the perfect pilot who's "heading select" pushing works 100% of the time and you have no need for CRM in the cockpit. Congratulations! You win!
Originally Posted by
saab2000
It's my understanding that type-rating check rides are jeopardy events. They are not 'train to proficiency' events.
I wasn't there, but a type rating ride is a serious event and I'm not sure, based on what's described, that it didn't have the appropriate outcome.
LOE events are supposed to be about CRM and how issues that come up during flight are handled as a crew. If there is a UAS, the job of the check airman is to determined if it was mitigated / handled safely. When CRM is broken by the examiner the whole premise of the LOE falls through.
Now, again, I think the SY instructors are doing a good job under the circumstances. The training program itself needs revisions and needs to be more in the spirit what FAA wants out of AQP training.
LOE isn't supposed be a bust for simple mistakes that could be caught with CRM. It's about how the mistakes are handled and mitigated.
Originally Posted by
Venkman
Appreciate the write up. I'm going to give you some constructive criticism. The business with the ILS/RNAV and unforecast weather has me confused. If I'm reading you right, you assumed based on forecasts that you'd be flying a particular approach to a particular runway and the weather would be a particular way. When you got there and pulled the ATIS, it was something different. The forecast didn't play out exactly and they were running the RNAV instead of the ILS you expected. Ok? So you pivot and fly RNAV if you're legal to, or you divert. To be honest, this aligns pretty well with the real world. What it doesn't sound like is your "typical" checkride scenario where they brief you soup-to-nuts on how the day will go and then you go about checking off the boxes. I guess you can call it a curveball, but it sounds to me like a perfectly realistic one. And not a very big deal if you can get past deviating from the checkride profile expectations. The tapping out thing is difficult. In general, that sounds like BS to me. You're a crew, fly as a crew. However, I have been in situations where the right seater was fireman carrying the left seater through the ride, and the examiner finally has to say "bang you're dead" to accurately evaluate the other guy's performance. It's a tough balancing act for everyone.
Here's another thing I picked up on from your posts. You seem very adamant to emphasize that you have never busted anything ever. You hold your clean training history in high regard, which is very understandable. But it almost sounds like a chip on your shoulder that is ultimately harming you. Case in point, you were so insulted over not performing well during training that it lead you to badmouth the program openly enough that you got fired. And now here you are on a public forum, continuing to disparage the SY training department because they withheld a gold star from you, mrgoodguy, who has never had any training difficulties ever! I'm being dramatic of course, but that is how it comes across. So reflect on that a little as you move forward.
You sound like a smart cat. I've had my share of bad examiners too and don't find it hard to believe. I also don't subscribe to the endless self-flagellation of a bad checkride. Most times the applicant screws up, but sometimes you get a pinhead examiner who got a speeding ticket that morning and for whatever reason, they set out to share their misery with you. Of course you must never suggest that in an interview, but everyone knows the truth. I sincerely mean this to be constructive. Be careful not to trip over your own ego.
The ILS/RNAV issue was that they never let me mitigate the issue. In "real world" the ATC would say "Expect RNAV XXX approach" which the examiner never did. The SIM broke and he said "are you ready for approach" I said "yes" at which point the ride was over. In real world then ATC would say "Expect RNAV XXX" we would ask for a hold / delay vectors to set up for the RNAV, problem solved.
Yes, there are some people that need their "hands held" during the checkride. Neither I nor anybody in my class were those people. Those people rarely actually get signed off for the checkride anyway. Yes it was very frustrating that after never having to be even close to struggling I was all of the sudden struggling very much. Especially when I thought it wasn't fair. I would think that's understandable. People are allowed to vent sometimes, it's just human nature.
I am the first one to say that I am not perfect. I make mistakes. I am a firm believer in CRM. During the stressful training time when you expect CRM and they take it away from you to such a degree that it affects your performance of course you would feel frustrated. I never badmouthed anyone. I am just trying to convey what happened in hopes it would help other people. I repeatedly said that the instructors are good and are trying the best they can under the circumstances. However the program is in bad need of fixing. Perhaps they are doing it already.
The check airman that got me fired asked "how is training going" I didn't volunteer any information before he asked.