Notices

Sun Country

Old 10-22-2018, 01:43 PM
  #1171  
Line Holder
 
Venkman's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Position: Small to large - in that order.
Posts: 61
Default

Originally Posted by mrgoodguy View Post
No I am not the UND guy. I have 10+ years experience at the regionals. Their new training program is actually a lot better for people with zero jet experience than lots of experience. For someone like me that knows what AQP should be like and have experience with it, was precisely what was tripping me up. The "FAA-approved" AQP training programs should be similar from airline to airline but the SCA program is totally out of left field.

It seemed to me people with most problems had the most experience. People with fewest experience had the most to learn but the least to un-learn.
Can you give an example of what you're talking about? How does SCA's AQP differ from how it's supposed to operate? What sort of CRM deviations tripped you up?
Venkman is offline  
Old 10-22-2018, 04:56 PM
  #1172  
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: May 2018
Posts: 10
Default

Originally Posted by Venkman View Post
Can you give an example of what you're talking about? How does SCA's AQP differ from how it's supposed to operate? What sort of CRM deviations tripped you up?
Let me reiterate that I didn't "wash out" of this training. I never had anything close to "struggle" or training failure in my 10+ years flying jets.

I think that the APDs (Examiners) still go into AQP training as though it was "old-style" checkride. This is where the discontinuities with "true" AQP come from I believe. Not enough time has passed for Sun Country's APDs to "internalize" AQP philosophy.

Examples:

For every checkride (PV, MV, LOE) the instructors would say that there are "no new maneuvers" that haven't been seen before in training that are going to be introduced on the checkride. False. Every checkride introduced a never-before-seen maneuver. They like "flap failure / assymetry" on go around to be introduced on the checkride. Also, Second-segment-climb engine failure was also introduced on my checkride.

Whenever you make a mistake (nothing too bad) easily caught by the other guy, the APD would tap the other guy on the shoulder and shush him. At that point you are single pilot, no CRM. I had "heading select" mode that didn't take (I didn't press the button hard enough) that was easily caught by the other guy "tapped out" by the APD and that was one of my "maneuver failures"

One of the LOE scenarios had the ILS out NOTAM for the wrong runway, and weather forecast for the whole period was MAX 300 3/4 with no rain that pretty much lead to ILS approach ONLY for the runway that was in use. They give you an ATIS card as though from the printer. Oh and the FO reading light on the sim was out. SURPRISE! Weather was 800/2. Also, the sim brakes at this time, for the second time on the checkride!
Well ok, good. However I didn't notice that on the bottom on the card they were using RNAV approach and there was rain w/braking action reports. Unforecast, Un-NOTAMd. If I didn't read the paperwork I would be good, but since like a good pilot I read the paperwork, I expected no rain and ILS to mins.
Oh, and of course the ILS was identified by the aircraft and the needles matched.
Since the SIM broke, the ride stopped at that point.

Heard there are maneuver fails for not setting ILS inbound courses for RNAV approach, even though it's not a requirement. "must follow procedure" was the answer. Also the other guy was "tapped out" of that one.

Other things like that. Nothing major in it of itself but in combination reminds me more of a "full-of-tricks" PC rather than more realistic scenario-based AQP training.
mrgoodguy is offline  
Old 10-22-2018, 05:41 PM
  #1173  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2018
Position: 737
Posts: 140
Default

Originally Posted by mrgoodguy View Post
Let me reiterate that I didn't "wash out" of this training. I never had anything close to "struggle" or training failure in my 10+ years flying jets.

I think that the APDs (Examiners) still go into AQP training as though it was "old-style" checkride. This is where the discontinuities with "true" AQP come from I believe. Not enough time has passed for Sun Country's APDs to "internalize" AQP philosophy.

Examples:

For every checkride (PV, MV, LOE) the instructors would say that there are "no new maneuvers" that haven't been seen before in training that are going to be introduced on the checkride. False. Every checkride introduced a never-before-seen maneuver. They like "flap failure / assymetry" on go around to be introduced on the checkride. Also, Second-segment-climb engine failure was also introduced on my checkride.

Whenever you make a mistake (nothing too bad) easily caught by the other guy, the APD would tap the other guy on the shoulder and shush him. At that point you are single pilot, no CRM. I had "heading select" mode that didn't take (I didn't press the button hard enough) that was easily caught by the other guy "tapped out" by the APD and that was one of my "maneuver failures"

One of the LOE scenarios had the ILS out NOTAM for the wrong runway, and weather forecast for the whole period was MAX 300 3/4 with no rain that pretty much lead to ILS approach ONLY for the runway that was in use. They give you an ATIS card as though from the printer. Oh and the FO reading light on the sim was out. SURPRISE! Weather was 800/2. Also, the sim brakes at this time, for the second time on the checkride!
Well ok, good. However I didn't notice that on the bottom on the card they were using RNAV approach and there was rain w/braking action reports. Unforecast, Un-NOTAMd. If I didn't read the paperwork I would be good, but since like a good pilot I read the paperwork, I expected no rain and ILS to mins.
Oh, and of course the ILS was identified by the aircraft and the needles matched.
Since the SIM broke, the ride stopped at that point.

Heard there are maneuver fails for not setting ILS inbound courses for RNAV approach, even though it's not a requirement. "must follow procedure" was the answer. Also the other guy was "tapped out" of that one.

Other things like that. Nothing major in it of itself but in combination reminds me more of a "full-of-tricks" PC rather than more realistic scenario-based AQP training.
Besides the sim breaking, any and all of those scenarios seem realistic to me. Even the copilot “tapped out”.

I’ve never seen a pilot here not set the ILS inbound course even while doing an RNAV approach. Why not use your resources to back yourself up? Especially on a check ride?

You’re making it sound like an AQP checkride should be a free automatic pass. If that was the case, our airline would be extremely unsafe.
Highflyer35 is offline  
Old 10-22-2018, 05:44 PM
  #1174  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Posts: 828
Default

Originally Posted by mrgoodguy View Post
Let me reiterate that I didn't "wash out" of this training. I never had anything close to "struggle" or training failure in my 10+ years flying jets.

I think that the APDs (Examiners) still go into AQP training as though it was "old-style" checkride. This is where the discontinuities with "true" AQP come from I believe. Not enough time has passed for Sun Country's APDs to "internalize" AQP philosophy.

Examples:

For every checkride (PV, MV, LOE) the instructors would say that there are "no new maneuvers" that haven't been seen before in training that are going to be introduced on the checkride. False. Every checkride introduced a never-before-seen maneuver. They like "flap failure / assymetry" on go around to be introduced on the checkride. Also, Second-segment-climb engine failure was also introduced on my checkride.

Whenever you make a mistake (nothing too bad) easily caught by the other guy, the APD would tap the other guy on the shoulder and shush him. At that point you are single pilot, no CRM. I had "heading select" mode that didn't take (I didn't press the button hard enough) that was easily caught by the other guy "tapped out" by the APD and that was one of my "maneuver failures"

One of the LOE scenarios had the ILS out NOTAM for the wrong runway, and weather forecast for the whole period was MAX 300 3/4 with no rain that pretty much lead to ILS approach ONLY for the runway that was in use. They give you an ATIS card as though from the printer. Oh and the FO reading light on the sim was out. SURPRISE! Weather was 800/2. Also, the sim brakes at this time, for the second time on the checkride!
Well ok, good. However I didn't notice that on the bottom on the card they were using RNAV approach and there was rain w/braking action reports. Unforecast, Un-NOTAMd. If I didn't read the paperwork I would be good, but since like a good pilot I read the paperwork, I expected no rain and ILS to mins.
Oh, and of course the ILS was identified by the aircraft and the needles matched.
Since the SIM broke, the ride stopped at that point.

Heard there are maneuver fails for not setting ILS inbound courses for RNAV approach, even though it's not a requirement. "must follow procedure" was the answer. Also the other guy was "tapped out" of that one.

Other things like that. Nothing major in it of itself but in combination reminds me more of a "full-of-tricks" PC rather than more realistic scenario-based AQP training.
Good lord. This was painful to read. You better not come over to my shop.....you wouldn't last a day.
goinaround is offline  
Old 10-22-2018, 06:35 PM
  #1175  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 307
Default

Originally Posted by mrgoodguy View Post
Add another one to the statistics.
I was terminated just before completion of training (type rating)
After being 10 years in AQP environment the SCA training was "unexpectedly full of tricks and omissions" and not within the spirit of what AQP is supposed to be. Actual flight experience worked against me, and not for me, because I was expecting "regular" AQP experience instead of trickery and SRM (as opposed to CRM) during training and check rides.
Most of my class failed one portion of training or another, so I was not alone by far.
Their AQP program is new, so that may be the issue, and I don't think it's the fault of individual instructors, but the "spirit" behind the sim training program is not what FAA AC for AQP is all about.
Unfortunately for me, I talked about the training program deficiencies in presence of a check airman (I didn't know that at the time) and he complained to chief pilot who immediately fired me.
Be ware and keep your mouth shut during this stressful training time.
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?
Viking6 is offline  
Old 10-23-2018, 12:10 AM
  #1176  
In a land of unicorns
 
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: Whale FO
Posts: 6,406
Default

Originally Posted by mrgoodguy View Post
Let me reiterate that I didn't "wash out" of this training. I never had anything close to "struggle" or training failure in my 10+ years flying jets.

I think that the APDs (Examiners) still go into AQP training as though it was "old-style" checkride. This is where the discontinuities with "true" AQP come from I believe. Not enough time has passed for Sun Country's APDs to "internalize" AQP philosophy.

Examples:

For every checkride (PV, MV, LOE) the instructors would say that there are "no new maneuvers" that haven't been seen before in training that are going to be introduced on the checkride. False. Every checkride introduced a never-before-seen maneuver. They like "flap failure / assymetry" on go around to be introduced on the checkride. Also, Second-segment-climb engine failure was also introduced on my checkride.

Whenever you make a mistake (nothing too bad) easily caught by the other guy, the APD would tap the other guy on the shoulder and shush him. At that point you are single pilot, no CRM. I had "heading select" mode that didn't take (I didn't press the button hard enough) that was easily caught by the other guy "tapped out" by the APD and that was one of my "maneuver failures"

One of the LOE scenarios had the ILS out NOTAM for the wrong runway, and weather forecast for the whole period was MAX 300 3/4 with no rain that pretty much lead to ILS approach ONLY for the runway that was in use. They give you an ATIS card as though from the printer. Oh and the FO reading light on the sim was out. SURPRISE! Weather was 800/2. Also, the sim brakes at this time, for the second time on the checkride!
Well ok, good. However I didn't notice that on the bottom on the card they were using RNAV approach and there was rain w/braking action reports. Unforecast, Un-NOTAMd. If I didn't read the paperwork I would be good, but since like a good pilot I read the paperwork, I expected no rain and ILS to mins.
Oh, and of course the ILS was identified by the aircraft and the needles matched.
Since the SIM broke, the ride stopped at that point.

Heard there are maneuver fails for not setting ILS inbound courses for RNAV approach, even though it's not a requirement. "must follow procedure" was the answer. Also the other guy was "tapped out" of that one.

Other things like that. Nothing major in it of itself but in combination reminds me more of a "full-of-tricks" PC rather than more realistic scenario-based AQP training.
You just described a few non-retrainable events. Sounds like the check airman was doing a good job failing you.
dera is offline  
Old 10-23-2018, 04:19 AM
  #1177  
Gets Weekends Off
 
saab2000's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,750
Default

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.
saab2000 is online now  
Old 10-23-2018, 04:52 AM
  #1178  
Line Holder
 
Venkman's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Position: Small to large - in that order.
Posts: 61
Default

Originally Posted by mrgoodguy View Post
Let me reiterate that I didn't "wash out" of this training. I never had anything close to "struggle" or training failure in my 10+ years flying jets.

I think that the APDs (Examiners) still go into AQP training as though it was "old-style" checkride. This is where the discontinuities with "true" AQP come from I believe. Not enough time has passed for Sun Country's APDs to "internalize" AQP philosophy.

Examples:

For every checkride (PV, MV, LOE) the instructors would say that there are "no new maneuvers" that haven't been seen before in training that are going to be introduced on the checkride. False. Every checkride introduced a never-before-seen maneuver. They like "flap failure / assymetry" on go around to be introduced on the checkride. Also, Second-segment-climb engine failure was also introduced on my checkride.

Whenever you make a mistake (nothing too bad) easily caught by the other guy, the APD would tap the other guy on the shoulder and shush him. At that point you are single pilot, no CRM. I had "heading select" mode that didn't take (I didn't press the button hard enough) that was easily caught by the other guy "tapped out" by the APD and that was one of my "maneuver failures"

One of the LOE scenarios had the ILS out NOTAM for the wrong runway, and weather forecast for the whole period was MAX 300 3/4 with no rain that pretty much lead to ILS approach ONLY for the runway that was in use. They give you an ATIS card as though from the printer. Oh and the FO reading light on the sim was out. SURPRISE! Weather was 800/2. Also, the sim brakes at this time, for the second time on the checkride!
Well ok, good. However I didn't notice that on the bottom on the card they were using RNAV approach and there was rain w/braking action reports. Unforecast, Un-NOTAMd. If I didn't read the paperwork I would be good, but since like a good pilot I read the paperwork, I expected no rain and ILS to mins.
Oh, and of course the ILS was identified by the aircraft and the needles matched.
Since the SIM broke, the ride stopped at that point.

Heard there are maneuver fails for not setting ILS inbound courses for RNAV approach, even though it's not a requirement. "must follow procedure" was the answer. Also the other guy was "tapped out" of that one.

Other things like that. Nothing major in it of itself but in combination reminds me more of a "full-of-tricks" PC rather than more realistic scenario-based AQP training.
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.
Venkman is offline  
Old 10-23-2018, 09:58 AM
  #1179  
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: May 2018
Posts: 10
Default

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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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.
mrgoodguy is offline  
Old 10-24-2018, 04:17 PM
  #1180  
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: Sep 2018
Posts: 14
Default

Apologize if this is answered already but...

What is training pay at Sun Country. In my offer letter it stated $48 per hour. I’m assuming that is at min guarentee even if we are spending 8 hours a day in ground school?

How soon can I expect a paycheck and on what dates are we paid? Is it going to take a few weeks to see any paychecks ?
Mciflyboy is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Green Banana
Sun Country
90
10-23-2019 09:56 PM
djrogs03
Major
5
09-21-2010 10:28 PM
A320Flyer
Major
16
11-10-2009 01:01 PM
Green Banana
Major
6
10-06-2008 04:06 PM
stbloc
Major
23
04-06-2008 05:20 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices