Why so much emphasis on failed check rides? I am only asking because being a pilot that had all his flight training abroad (different country, different language) it is hard for me to understand.

If you have the license/rating it means you passed the check-ride, otherwise you would not have that license/rating, right? I understand if you failed the same check-ride several times, but why should be one in a "black list" for failing check rides the first time you take them?

I never failed a check-ride in my native country, then I moved to the US and in the process of getting my American commercial-multi I failed because I dragged concepts about flying from home that did not apply here (too long to explain, not blaming anyone, my fault!)

Ok, I failed, I took it again and passed! Can't one make a mistake? Why is my license not as good as the license of a pilot that passed the ride on the first try?

I would love to know what all fellow pilots think about this, thanks!

One failure shouldn't kill you, but after the colgan accident, where it was found that the Captain lied about his history of multiple failures, companies are now more critical of pilots who have a pattern of failures, due to media pressure.

I think the RJ is a hell of alot harder to fly/learn than the space shuttle. And I have flown the space shuttle. When I say that I mean at space camp when I was 7.....

I wish I could have gone to space camp :(

Have you ever been to space camp on weed man

You mean Bernoulli works differently in your home country? :confused::D

Back in my day, you had to be a graduate from space camp to get a regional job. 510210501240921 hours total time, and be able to down 5 beers in 10 seconds while hanging upside down. I had to go out and CFI for 10 years, then fly night freight in a plane that flew by me flapping my arms all night, in ice, with no boots, and rabbit wolves in the cabin. After 25 years of that, you might get hired by great lakes.

Guys these days just are not ready for the RJ life. Not sure how guys under 1000 hours have been hired for over 12 years now to fly RJs. Its such a shock to me that it has begun to happen.

When I was doing IOE, it was very apparent that the overall experience level had gone down because IOE took WAY longer to finish for the majority of men and women than it had in the past. New hire IOE used to take the minimum 25 hours or so, with the previous experience levels. Not any more. Every once in a while I'd get some low time new guy who was just a born natural for the job and picked it all up very quickly. Most started out slowly, took longer to finish. Just about all of them went on to become very good at this job.

One thing that does bother me though, is that sooo many of the pilots I fly with flip on the autopilot as soon as they enter any weather. The feeling I get is that maybe they don't quite have the confidence in their own scans. Not sure. What better way to gain confidence though, then by hand flying the plane in weather during the climb through maybe 12,000 to 15,000 feet, and hand flying the descent and approach - at least once in a while?

I think a big problem is Captains dont realize you have a 200 foot buffer on altitudes. Many new guys are scared of being off by 50 feet when they level off. Some captains go nuts when your 75 feet high on your level off. The book says you have 200 feet.

I am not saying that its good that anyone is off at all, but its why guys are scared and use the auto pilot so quickly, esp when leveling off/ in terminal zone/in WX.

Rabbit wolves? I am more afraid of rabid wolves. :eek:

Find me a wingman er wingperson yet? :p

Ya rabbit wolves. You remember from the 90s on Americas funniest home videos with Bob S, they had one!! The super jack rabbit. The jackalope.

Do you know what is even harder and more dangerous?

Flying around the 1900 in the north, in ice and weather, with no auto pilot, and an FO of your maturity level.

Those poor direct entry Captains, what have they gotten themselves into?

No, but some things are different.

Where I learned to fly if you had an engine failure in IMC (or simulated) you would fly the plane first and then after control was regained you would worry about shooting an approach to land, even if the failure was during an approach.

When I took my check-ride the examiner simulated an engine failure right when I was getting established on the LOC coming at a 30 degree angle.
So I did as I was used to, flew the plane, performed the procedures and then I worried about navigating to a fix where I could resume/restart the approach from. I didn't know at the time that I was supposed to keep tracking of the approach while performing the single-engine procedures.

The examiner told me I had failed and the reason why. We set up a date to go fly again the following week, which we did, and I passed the second time.

What's funny is that when I took the same check-ride abroad for the first time, the examiner's critique was that I should have just flown the plane first before worrying about the approach, he said to keep my a$$ in one piece and then navigate to an airport to land. So keeping that in mind made me fail here, oh well, just another learning experience!

Silver wings

One question, what if, by going thru the LOC, you flew into the mountain on the other side of the course? For example, inbound to KASE, LSGG, KEGE, of LFLB

GF

GF is right. Same goes for simultaneous parallel approaches. Everybody knows Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. But that does have its limitations.

There is no difference in aviate, navigate, communicate.
Scenario based training/checking can be difficult based on the different circumstances presented - such as GF pointed out. They may be prioritized, but often need to be near simultaneous.

USMCFLYR

Oh, I totally agree. After the failed check-ride the examiner explained to me the same things you guys are saying, and I totally agree!
I was just saying that by applying what was taught to me before I failed a check-ride. Of course it was taught to me in an environment where there are no mountains or partallel runways in the whole country.

Anyway it was my fault for not researching more about all the maneuvers and what was expected from me, the instructor that I flew with to prepare for the ride thought it was gonna be a piece of cake for me since I had more time than he had, so he didn't tell me a lot of things thinking I already knew everything, and that was a big mistake I had to suffer

Checkride busts are now more scrutinized after 3407 thanks to the media. Explaining it that way in the message board, people will understand...the media, not so much.

One of the first questions people ask me, "Do you know...."

You don't have to hope bud.

Are the mod's out to lunch? This thread needs to be taken out back a shot.

Cruz- After the time I know I spent giving you advice and answering your questions in the past (about getting on at an aerial survey company, no less), the new attitude on display here is pretty disappointing.

1. It seems like many do it when they get a new job, we all got to be topgun at some point in our lives.

2. You want to get the thread drunk? Shots of what?

I'll take a fuzzy navel!!!!!!11!!!!

Ahhhhh... yeah, yeah, yeah, touché. Taken out AND* shot.

This threads needs some Turkey, of the Wild variety. Ought to take away the pain from me punching myself in the face as I read through this monstrosity.

I will take some Capt and Coke..............reminds me of this one layover in...oh never mind.

MacAllen, neat

GF

Goose and a splash of soda in a short glass with a couple of olives.

redbull and vodka, come at me BRO!

That's my line bro.

Guys, I just wanted to know if there are 19 seaters still flying around. That's all.

Ya Montana.

Saw one in KEYW last week.

GF

That would be a Gulfstream plane.

saw one in Georgetown once in 2012.

Oh that was gulfstream too.

Saw one in Long Beach...


Oh, that was Ameriflight.

Yeah, there are still 19 seaters flying around. But the ones from Gulfstream have 20 paying passengers on board. You know, you have to count the FO too..... BAZINGA!

(I taught many Brits. Those that had gotten their initial had a very different take on thing than those taught over here. Which was right depended on who was the Monday morning quarterback.)

I'm glad you took it as a learning experience. Good for you!

There is no absolute about when one responds to a warning and says "Noted, continue." One could argue for and against breaking off the approach to run the checklists for an engine failure. Personally, I agree with your post (going on what details I have): secure the engine, and get on the ground. Had it been an engine fire, I would agree even more. Unfortunately, many examiners believe "mine is the best way to do it." Had your examiner allowed the flight to continue, then in the debrief asked why you did what you did (as I would if I were an examiner), he might have understood your logic and agreed with you. There are many ways to skin a cat. Your choice to continue could have resulted in a good outcome. That said, his choice to stay aloft, run every checklist, then shoot the approach could have resulted in a good outcome. Which is better? Well, that is whichever the NTSB deems correct.

Because they were hired to fly a transport aircraft straight and level. I might add, those RJs were designed to be flown by 250 hour pilots: little system knowledge required (when compared to a 707, 727, or DC8). Everything is great until something unusual happens (due to CAT, CBs, wake turbulence, etc): think of AF 447 or Colgan 3407.

Experience teaches us how to recover from being in a bad place (either man made or act of God). It isn't fool proof, but it does give us more tools.

why? over time we can just keep making the plane smart enough to get out of it??

See Air France.

And to the above post about RJ's being much simpler systems-wise than a DC-8, 707, or 727..... of course they are. So is a 777, 747-400, 767, 757, 737, 717, A330, A340, A380, A320, and every other modern transport category airplane. Automation advances in 50 years.... enough to eliminate a crew-member.

Reminded me of this picture...


http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/m...og/dc9a320.gif