Guard

Training has gone in house. High failure rates

prt135

What is the training structure like? How many sim sessions?

MtnFlying

What are the consequences? Termination...retraining? I can imagine they are trying to show the FAA that they are willing to be tough for internal training, but at what cost? It gets out of hand and they will lose some pilots that are not willing to take that chance.

shrsailplanes

There may be another reason and it’s far more devious. People with failures in their record get passed on when trying to get another job. A question that is always asked is, “Any checkride or training failures in your history?”

It’s very hard to prove that is the intent, but it is a way to retain pilots. There are regional airlines out there that employ this tactic.

chase

1. First statement TRUE. "Trsining has gone in house." Training for CL Sim instructors is complete. Praise for the quality of the instruction and instructors. No more CAE folks trying to teach non CAE procedures. Persons I have spoken with who have received the long training and the "drive by" say it is vastly improved.

2. Second statement FALSE: "High failure rate"

The training is to the standard XO requires and our customers expect. No "gimme's", just professional performance is required of our pilots. The vast majority are not finding it beyond their skill level..true training and "fair" is the term I hear most often.

I asked the persons who should know the facts. Sharing those versus rumors from 2nd hand sources.

chase

To readers/lurkers of this thread,,

It is pretty common for those who read forums regularly to know how some persons will lay out statements that come with an air of certainty.

Then the follow on is to build around those "truth statements" a conspiracy that leads the reader to begin to question the professionalism of the individual or in this case a company.

Why persons do that is unknown but it can be for many reasons, none of which benefits the reader who is only trying to ascertain facts, not rumors.

The taint of having bounced from one type of operator to another and finding little professional satisfaction can be one reason or a genuine dislike of a company for whatever reason but to the reader, you don't care why they post what they post...just paint a realistic picture for me without personal motivations as to why something is truthful/fact based or not.

For a poster to attach "intent" to professional evaulators as a means to screw a pilot's career and implying that could be in play at XO or any company without FACTS should tell the reader/lurker something about the original poster and whether you should suffer through their ramblings.

Yes, personal opinions can be shared and speculation is certainly permissable on forums but for those trying to avoid the "gossip", "conspiracy theory" side of aviation and simply looking for facts to help you make decisions about career, know which sources to believe and which ones to avoid.

Wading through the "muck" of postposts that muddy the waters is one of the biggest combines of those who visit these forums. Just be wise enough to assess who are the purveyors of facts versus myths, conspiracy theories.

frankgh

Very well said!

chase

Prt 135

Will get you a current answer.

XO has undergone changes to our IOE training for all fleets, all for the good.

Training is working overtime with lots of new hires, COE and others. The goal is to move to an AQP type training model, similar to larger 121 carriers.

Having operated under the "old" system at SWA and the newer AQP model for my last 8 yrs, unequivocally the AQP model is better training.

For XO to bite off that challenge in moving in that direction reflects a step up to professional training. One of those steps is in house ground/ Sim instructors. Not sure if other 135 operators are or no moving to AQP type training t but it is a good thing IMHO.

Will get a you a specific a answer, give me a few days. I start rotation tomorrow. ThanKS for asking.

chase

Consequences of a failed checkrides at XO is like it is at any reputable operator.

1. Retrain the pilot with focus on the problem area.
2. Redo the area that was deficient to a satisfactory standard.

Anybody can have a bad day so termination on a single failure is not likely. Sufficient training to get back to standard is what one could expect if faced with that situation.

Hope that a answers your question.

MtnFlying

Perfect, that is what I was hoping for (and kind of expecting). Thanks for clarifying that Chase!