Yoda2

Yes, about that simple! No red herrings, Etc. I am all for oversight. My argument is purely about how the current methods might or do affect training. If someone is adamant about or just opposed to having a Fed in the jump seat, during times other than training, I believe they might have made a poor career choice. My position regarding the FAA's presence is only in regards to training. I believe, right or wrong, that the FAA's presence during a training event may quite possibly be a detractor. I believe it is worth investigating. Maybe a scientific investigation would turn up other methods or tools that can be used in an evaluation or oversight scenario. As to the scenario you mentioned involving a known "scientist"; that wouldn't be a very scientific scenario. I would hope the scientists would be a little sharper than that.

Ben Kenobi

I say again, if no FAA personnel are allowed to observe training events (because that's the slippery slope extension of your argument), then how are they to assess training and instructor effectiveness. Moreover, if you're OK with a FED observing a checking event, what's the big deal in training when there's no "real" pressure to perform?

Yoda2

Neither performance nor pressure, pressure in the sense I believe you are ascribing, are my primary issues either; though performance could ultimately be linked to the root cause of my argument. My argument has to do with quality of instruction, use of time and distractions. A student must feel able to operate relatively unfettered, at least enough to feel free in asking questions, without inhibition, to include fear of undue embarrasment, ridicule or fear of reprisal, real or perceived. This is essential to create and maintain an envirionment that is most conducive to learning and for the student to extract the maximum possible benefit from their training session. As far as assessing [and I might oversimplify for the sake of the argument] though could that not be determined by results, the exam? If not, possibly the exam is deficient as well? I would also be interested in what might constitute instructor effectiveness. What is this performance metric? Is it so important to know what goes in vs what comes out? I think the end product is the goal. If an instructor is not doing their job, wouldn't it be obvious during the exam? If it is not, I would think it should be.

JohnBurke

A check airman in a Part 142 program acts as an extension of the Administrator; his or her authority is gained directly on authority granted by the Administrator, and a FAA inspector having responsibility for that authority (or the checking thereof) may observe the check airman at any point in the training, which includes checkrides AND instruction. The same is true of instruction given under a Part 142 operating certificate, or a 121 training program (or a 121 line check, for that matter).

My 747 captain upgrade line check was administered with a check airman in the right seat, and the principle operations inspector in the jump seat. The POI was also present during sim training sessions, and if I recall correctly, during the checkride (or was scheduled to be there during the checkride; I don't recall if he made it).

I once had a check airman ride with me for one leg, fill out an eval form, then one leg later, joined me for six more. In the middle of that, I called BS and arranged a meeting with the check airman. I'd been denied a copy of the line check form from the first leg, and called the check airman on it. He admitted that he'd been sent by the Chief Pilot with orders to fail me on the check (I was a steward and a thorn in the chief pilot's side, apparently). I didn't get busted because the check airman found no fault with my performance ("I'm nobody's hatchet man" were his exact words). The remaining six legs were coincidence, as we were half way around the world, and headed the same direction at the same time.

One could say that lends to some degree of paranoia (I was in touch with the exco immediately, and again after the first two legs). However, whether it was a check airman, or the FAA on board, the fact remained that I could only perform to my best; I could do no better. If my best was insufficient and did not meet the standard, then certainly the check airman would have been right to give me a bust.

I won't deny that on my upgrade line check I was more attentive than usual, even hyper alert, and The ride was only a couple of hours, plus the ride to the airport (the inspector met us at the hotel and rode with us). The meet was cordial. I knew the POI. If I didn't feel I was ready for the line check, I wouldn't have agreed to it. The final question after line training for upgrade was complete was "are you ready?" It put the ball in my court. I could have said "no." I felt I was prepared, and I was.

If indeed checking takes place inappropriately, whether training or a type ride, there are ways to address the matter, but those are an individual event, and not an indictment on the entire training system. If one aviator has difficulty during a training or checking event, there is no need to hold the system at fault and demand that inspectors not observe training or checking. With that kind of logic, next time the barn burns down, let's dehorn all the cows.