Busted 121 initial
08-22-2023, 06:30 PM
#1
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2023
Posts: 39
Busted 121 initial
So I busted my initial type ride on a Boeing for a 121 cargo airline and i,ve never felt worse in my life. Am I ********D?
The start of my disapproval began on an VOR approach. Sometimes the sim would not arm a vertical path without having a cruise altitude set. Of my 8 sessions in training the instructors would come over to the FMC and have us check if the cruise page was empty. Usually they would just throw in random altitudes like 5,000 or 10,000 without any guidance on why they picked that number. There was never any explanation on this and it’s not in our SOPs (just a simism). Anyway, I was outside the faf and descending vnav feeling good and decided to check the cruise page. No cruise alt was set. We were descending perfectly fine but I felt like being an over achiever and asked my seat support to set a cruise alt. He asked what altitude, and I suggested 1400 which was the faf altitude. Well this descended me below my fix prior to the faf and as I watched it bust the altitude around 250 below I selected AP & AT off and tried to re-establish. I climb too high and got fast and examiner froze the sim. Boom check-ride over. He asked why tf I didn’t go around? He’s right I should have. Stupid mistake.
If I didn’t touch the darn cruise page I would have been all good. My fault for not going around though.
Now my question is how screwed am I? I wanted to fly freight for a few years but was not planning to make this my career airline. A legacy was my long term goal. My only other check ride of 10 checkrides was my CFII.
Does the reason for this failure signify I’m just a Sh***y decision maker in the cockpit? How many other pilots do you know at legacy’s with a 121 bust prior to getting hired?
The start of my disapproval began on an VOR approach. Sometimes the sim would not arm a vertical path without having a cruise altitude set. Of my 8 sessions in training the instructors would come over to the FMC and have us check if the cruise page was empty. Usually they would just throw in random altitudes like 5,000 or 10,000 without any guidance on why they picked that number. There was never any explanation on this and it’s not in our SOPs (just a simism). Anyway, I was outside the faf and descending vnav feeling good and decided to check the cruise page. No cruise alt was set. We were descending perfectly fine but I felt like being an over achiever and asked my seat support to set a cruise alt. He asked what altitude, and I suggested 1400 which was the faf altitude. Well this descended me below my fix prior to the faf and as I watched it bust the altitude around 250 below I selected AP & AT off and tried to re-establish. I climb too high and got fast and examiner froze the sim. Boom check-ride over. He asked why tf I didn’t go around? He’s right I should have. Stupid mistake.
If I didn’t touch the darn cruise page I would have been all good. My fault for not going around though.
Now my question is how screwed am I? I wanted to fly freight for a few years but was not planning to make this my career airline. A legacy was my long term goal. My only other check ride of 10 checkrides was my CFII.
Does the reason for this failure signify I’m just a Sh***y decision maker in the cockpit? How many other pilots do you know at legacy’s with a 121 bust prior to getting hired?
08-22-2023, 06:35 PM
#2
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,026
Originally Posted by Twincezzna
So I busted my initial type ride on a Boeing for a 121 cargo airline and i,ve never felt worse in my life. Am I ********D?
The start of my disapproval began on an VOR approach. Sometimes the sim would not arm a vertical path without having a cruise altitude set. Of my 8 sessions in training the instructors would come over to the FMC and have us check if the cruise page was empty. Usually they would just throw in random altitudes like 5,000 or 10,000 without any guidance on why they picked that number. There was never any explanation on this and it’s not in our SOPs (just a simism). Anyway, I was outside the faf and descending vnav feeling good and decided to check the cruise page. No cruise alt was set. We were descending perfectly fine but I felt like being an over achiever and asked my seat support to set a cruise alt. He asked what altitude, and I suggested 1400 which was the faf altitude. Well this descended me below my fix prior to the faf and as I watched it bust the altitude around 250 below I selected AP & AT off and tried to re-establish. I climb too high and got fast and examiner froze the sim. Boom check-ride over. He asked why tf I didn’t go around? He’s right I should have. Stupid mistake.
If I didn’t touch the darn cruise page I would have been all good. My fault for not going around though.
Now my question is how screwed am I? I wanted to fly freight for a few years but was not planning to make this my career airline. A legacy was my long term goal. My only other check ride of 10 checkrides was my CFII.
Does the reason for this failure signify I’m just a Sh***y decision maker in the cockpit? How many other pilots do you know at legacy’s with a 121 bust prior to getting hired?
The start of my disapproval began on an VOR approach. Sometimes the sim would not arm a vertical path without having a cruise altitude set. Of my 8 sessions in training the instructors would come over to the FMC and have us check if the cruise page was empty. Usually they would just throw in random altitudes like 5,000 or 10,000 without any guidance on why they picked that number. There was never any explanation on this and it’s not in our SOPs (just a simism). Anyway, I was outside the faf and descending vnav feeling good and decided to check the cruise page. No cruise alt was set. We were descending perfectly fine but I felt like being an over achiever and asked my seat support to set a cruise alt. He asked what altitude, and I suggested 1400 which was the faf altitude. Well this descended me below my fix prior to the faf and as I watched it bust the altitude around 250 below I selected AP & AT off and tried to re-establish. I climb too high and got fast and examiner froze the sim. Boom check-ride over. He asked why tf I didn’t go around? He’s right I should have. Stupid mistake.
If I didn’t touch the darn cruise page I would have been all good. My fault for not going around though.
Now my question is how screwed am I? I wanted to fly freight for a few years but was not planning to make this my career airline. A legacy was my long term goal. My only other check ride of 10 checkrides was my CFII.
Does the reason for this failure signify I’m just a Sh***y decision maker in the cockpit? How many other pilots do you know at legacy’s with a 121 bust prior to getting hired?
08-22-2023, 06:38 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2021
Posts: 1,110
Originally Posted by Twincezzna
So I busted my initial type ride on a Boeing for a 121 cargo airline and i,ve never felt worse in my life. Am I ********D?
The start of my disapproval began on an VOR approach. Sometimes the sim would not arm a vertical path without having a cruise altitude set. Of my 8 sessions in training the instructors would come over to the FMC and have us check if the cruise page was empty. Usually they would just throw in random altitudes like 5,000 or 10,000 without any guidance on why they picked that number. There was never any explanation on this and it’s not in our SOPs (just a simism). Anyway, I was outside the faf and descending vnav feeling good and decided to check the cruise page. No cruise alt was set. We were descending perfectly fine but I felt like being an over achiever and asked my seat support to set a cruise alt. He asked what altitude, and I suggested 1400 which was the faf altitude. Well this descended me below my fix prior to the faf and as I watched it bust the altitude around 250 below I selected AP & AT off and tried to re-establish. I climb too high and got fast and examiner froze the sim. Boom check-ride over. He asked why tf I didn’t go around? He’s right I should have. Stupid mistake.
If I didn’t touch the darn cruise page I would have been all good. My fault for not going around though.
Now my question is how screwed am I? I wanted to fly freight for a few years but was not planning to make this my career airline. A legacy was my long term goal. My only other check ride of 10 checkrides was my CFII.
Does the reason for this failure signify I’m just a Sh***y decision maker in the cockpit? How many other pilots do you know at legacy’s with a 121 bust prior to getting hired?
The start of my disapproval began on an VOR approach. Sometimes the sim would not arm a vertical path without having a cruise altitude set. Of my 8 sessions in training the instructors would come over to the FMC and have us check if the cruise page was empty. Usually they would just throw in random altitudes like 5,000 or 10,000 without any guidance on why they picked that number. There was never any explanation on this and it’s not in our SOPs (just a simism). Anyway, I was outside the faf and descending vnav feeling good and decided to check the cruise page. No cruise alt was set. We were descending perfectly fine but I felt like being an over achiever and asked my seat support to set a cruise alt. He asked what altitude, and I suggested 1400 which was the faf altitude. Well this descended me below my fix prior to the faf and as I watched it bust the altitude around 250 below I selected AP & AT off and tried to re-establish. I climb too high and got fast and examiner froze the sim. Boom check-ride over. He asked why tf I didn’t go around? He’s right I should have. Stupid mistake.
If I didn’t touch the darn cruise page I would have been all good. My fault for not going around though.
Now my question is how screwed am I? I wanted to fly freight for a few years but was not planning to make this my career airline. A legacy was my long term goal. My only other check ride of 10 checkrides was my CFII.
Does the reason for this failure signify I’m just a Sh***y decision maker in the cockpit? How many other pilots do you know at legacy’s with a 121 bust prior to getting hired?
what ACMI company was this at, just curious
08-22-2023, 09:41 PM
#5
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2015
Posts: 52
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
This doesn't sound like a job ending event, even if it was a checkride-ending event.
I suspect there's more to the story.
I suspect there's more to the story.
08-22-2023, 11:21 PM
#6
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,293
Assuming you're still employed...
Collect yourself, calm down, and pass the re-ride. Your career is not screwed, even the legacies cannot be very picky these days.
With that said, it is a known thing in this day and age that some bottom feeder 121 operators are suspected of busting folks for the sole purpose of delaying or preventing their departure for greener pastures... ask around carefully, if you're in one of those shops GTFO asap. Just go to a decent regional before you have to do recurrent, if they can bust you twice in one year they know they have you locked in for many years, maybe for life. Not saying that's what's going on, but you should make sure that's not what you're dealing with.
Check your PRIA/PRD and training records carefully too.
Collect yourself, calm down, and pass the re-ride. Your career is not screwed, even the legacies cannot be very picky these days.
With that said, it is a known thing in this day and age that some bottom feeder 121 operators are suspected of busting folks for the sole purpose of delaying or preventing their departure for greener pastures... ask around carefully, if you're in one of those shops GTFO asap. Just go to a decent regional before you have to do recurrent, if they can bust you twice in one year they know they have you locked in for many years, maybe for life. Not saying that's what's going on, but you should make sure that's not what you're dealing with.
Check your PRIA/PRD and training records carefully too.
08-22-2023, 11:38 PM
#7
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2013
Posts: 99
I agree with this post. As pilots we must do our DD on how the training department is for the airline we are going to and avoid them like the plague. Places like Atlas, PSA, Republic, and Gojet just to name a few have higher than normal complaints. It is known some check pilots do this to please their egos or to keep the pilots locked to a company longer. It is possible to go to one of these places and be ok maybe you never run into the problem check pilots or they are having a good day during a ride but why risk it? Definitely learn from this as there is no such thing as a perfect checkride and leave asap to a place you’ve done your DD with.
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Assuming you're still employed...
Collect yourself, calm down, and pass the re-ride. Your career is not screwed, even the legacies cannot be very picky these days.
With that said, it is a known thing in this day and age that some bottom feeder 121 operators are suspected of busting folks for the sole purpose of delaying or preventing their departure for greener pastures... ask around carefully, if you're in one of those shops GTFO asap. Just go to a decent regional before you have to do recurrent, if they can bust you twice in one year they know they have you locked in for many years, maybe for life. Not saying that's what's going on, but you should make sure that's not what you're dealing with.
Check your PRIA/PRD and training records carefully too.
Collect yourself, calm down, and pass the re-ride. Your career is not screwed, even the legacies cannot be very picky these days.
With that said, it is a known thing in this day and age that some bottom feeder 121 operators are suspected of busting folks for the sole purpose of delaying or preventing their departure for greener pastures... ask around carefully, if you're in one of those shops GTFO asap. Just go to a decent regional before you have to do recurrent, if they can bust you twice in one year they know they have you locked in for many years, maybe for life. Not saying that's what's going on, but you should make sure that's not what you're dealing with.
Check your PRIA/PRD and training records carefully too.
08-23-2023, 12:15 AM
#8
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,026
There's nothing in the original narrative that suggests the original poster was blindsided by an effort to derail his career, and ACMI operators do not have a reputation for attempting to do that.
If the original poster is still employed by the carrier and is simply going back for a second attempt with a possible extra sim session or additional training, then it's not much to get excited about. Bottom line, fly the airplane.
A training failure is a training failure, regardless of whether it occurred at a 135 operation or a 121 operation, and regardless of whether it happened at a dirty low-iife devil-may-care great-unwashed son-of-satan evil scumbag sorry-you-were-born-and-its-too-bad-you-never-got-the-level-of-training-I-had-in-the-military ACMI operator, or a thank-you-jesus vaunted closer-to-god realworld genuine blessed and holy and sacred legacy operator. It's a training failure.
The best revenge for careless living is to put distance and success between today and yesterday; if he's still employed, pass the checkride and move on.
Any training failure or black mark on one's historical record must be owned, not explained away, and it would be deeply inappropriate to infer that it's a lesser event because it occurred at an ACMI carrier, especially with the expectation of an "oh, it's just one of those scumbag operators" expectations. The classic It's-not-me-it's-them gambit. The original poster has already explained it, and will need to explain it for life, but should leave out any part of the explanation that implies it was anything but personal fault for which he accepts responsibility and from which he has learned. Simisms, check airmen antics, etc are excuses, not explanations and aren't a good look. I went low, I should have gone around, covers it.
For the original poster, there's a reason that the operator wants you to protect the FAF altitude on the MCP, isn't there?
If the original poster is still employed by the carrier and is simply going back for a second attempt with a possible extra sim session or additional training, then it's not much to get excited about. Bottom line, fly the airplane.
A training failure is a training failure, regardless of whether it occurred at a 135 operation or a 121 operation, and regardless of whether it happened at a dirty low-iife devil-may-care great-unwashed son-of-satan evil scumbag sorry-you-were-born-and-its-too-bad-you-never-got-the-level-of-training-I-had-in-the-military ACMI operator, or a thank-you-jesus vaunted closer-to-god realworld genuine blessed and holy and sacred legacy operator. It's a training failure.
The best revenge for careless living is to put distance and success between today and yesterday; if he's still employed, pass the checkride and move on.
Any training failure or black mark on one's historical record must be owned, not explained away, and it would be deeply inappropriate to infer that it's a lesser event because it occurred at an ACMI carrier, especially with the expectation of an "oh, it's just one of those scumbag operators" expectations. The classic It's-not-me-it's-them gambit. The original poster has already explained it, and will need to explain it for life, but should leave out any part of the explanation that implies it was anything but personal fault for which he accepts responsibility and from which he has learned. Simisms, check airmen antics, etc are excuses, not explanations and aren't a good look. I went low, I should have gone around, covers it.
For the original poster, there's a reason that the operator wants you to protect the FAF altitude on the MCP, isn't there?
08-23-2023, 01:16 AM
#9
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2023
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
Was this your type ride? You were discontinued and let go based on that singular event?
08-23-2023, 01:24 AM
#10
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2023
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
There's nothing in the original narrative that suggests the original poster was blindsided by an effort to derail his career, and ACMI operators do not have a reputation for attempting to do that.
If the original poster is still employed by the carrier and is simply going back for a second attempt with a possible extra sim session or additional training, then it's not much to get excited about. Bottom line, fly the airplane.
A training failure is a training failure, regardless of whether it occurred at a 135 operation or a 121 operation, and regardless of whether it happened at a dirty low-iife devil-may-care great-unwashed son-of-satan evil scumbag sorry-you-were-born-and-its-too-bad-you-never-got-the-level-of-training-I-had-in-the-military ACMI operator, or a thank-you-jesus vaunted closer-to-god realworld genuine blessed and holy and sacred legacy operator. It's a training failure.
The best revenge for careless living is to put distance and success between today and yesterday; if he's still employed, pass the checkride and move on.
Any training failure or black mark on one's historical record must be owned, not explained away, and it would be deeply inappropriate to infer that it's a lesser event because it occurred at an ACMI carrier, especially with the expectation of an "oh, it's just one of those scumbag operators" expectations. The classic It's-not-me-it's-them gambit. The original poster has already explained it, and will need to explain it for life, but should leave out any part of the explanation that implies it was anything but personal fault for which he accepts responsibility and from which he has learned. Simisms, check airmen antics, etc are excuses, not explanations and aren't a good look. I went low, I should have gone around, covers it.
For the original poster, there's a reason that the operator wants you to protect the FAF altitude on the MCP, isn't there?
If the original poster is still employed by the carrier and is simply going back for a second attempt with a possible extra sim session or additional training, then it's not much to get excited about. Bottom line, fly the airplane.
A training failure is a training failure, regardless of whether it occurred at a 135 operation or a 121 operation, and regardless of whether it happened at a dirty low-iife devil-may-care great-unwashed son-of-satan evil scumbag sorry-you-were-born-and-its-too-bad-you-never-got-the-level-of-training-I-had-in-the-military ACMI operator, or a thank-you-jesus vaunted closer-to-god realworld genuine blessed and holy and sacred legacy operator. It's a training failure.
The best revenge for careless living is to put distance and success between today and yesterday; if he's still employed, pass the checkride and move on.
Any training failure or black mark on one's historical record must be owned, not explained away, and it would be deeply inappropriate to infer that it's a lesser event because it occurred at an ACMI carrier, especially with the expectation of an "oh, it's just one of those scumbag operators" expectations. The classic It's-not-me-it's-them gambit. The original poster has already explained it, and will need to explain it for life, but should leave out any part of the explanation that implies it was anything but personal fault for which he accepts responsibility and from which he has learned. Simisms, check airmen antics, etc are excuses, not explanations and aren't a good look. I went low, I should have gone around, covers it.
For the original poster, there's a reason that the operator wants you to protect the FAF altitude on the MCP, isn't there?
Also I did try to protect the faf but selecting it into the cruise page and I thought that was being conservative. I wasn’t aware that I could not select a lower alt but it makes sense now. There was a gap in my training for this specific procedure because there is nowhere mentions this it’s just something we should all know when flying a sim. Moral of the story you can always go around and I f.ed up.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
