Rabbit,
The first thing I did after reading your post was go back and see if I missed a page of posts in this thread.

You obviously feel strongly about the points you're making - I'm just not sure exactly how they really relate to the OP.

To the OP - I think you've gotten some good advice. Pro-standards is not the avenue for addressing your concerns. Let the training department do their job. You calling this guy out, essentially going over their heads, isn't a good approach.

Consider the experience some good extra training. Not every guy in the left seat you fly with is going to bring his A game every day - that's just reality.

Hey Adler …

Of course, you’re right about my ‘strong feelings’ … and my response was generated out of what I see as the referenced post sounding very suspiciously like a failure of the training department … or, at the very least, a failure of more than one of the individual instructors involved … and that surely should be considered a failure (to some degree) of the training department as a whole.

My concern is that if we focus too much on individual successes … or what apparently pass as successes … we are very likely to overlook a systemic problem that cannot be addressed by continuing to do the same things over and over. I’m sure you’ve heard of the old adage that “…given enough time, even a blind squirrel can find a nut.” In other words, how long can someone continue to fail – or at least fail to progress appropriately – before that person stumbles onto the right combination of circumstances that make him/her appear to have finally put all the pieces together? It takes a well-trained instructor to recognize such occurrences and then determine what, if any, appropriate adjustments can or should be made to the training curriculum (including whether or not to the use same training instructor … or indeed, if continued training is worth the effort) to salvage what may be only a stubborn-learner or to determine that they have a person, who has, up to now, been able to save his/her bacon from the inevitable? It’s not necessarily something that can be easily determined and those able to make such determinations are typically few and far between. The fact that someone in the company has designated an individual as ‘an instructor,’ may be placing more confidence in that person than should be granted. It’s been my experience that the circumstances described in the original post are, at least at times, traceable back to the failure of the instructor (or instructors – plural) who have yet to break through to some pilots who have an ability to ‘fake it’ more than ‘make it.’ Good instructors are made … not born … and a good pilot may, but may not, eventually become a good instructor.

And while I certainly understand the reluctance of anyone “calling out” someone who has demonstrated ‘poor performance,’ I think that all of us should go whatever extra distance may be required – when necessary – to bring to the attention of others in the decision tree, those persons who continue to demonstrate an apparent ‘lack’ of competence – particularly when that demonstration continues over time and through changes in instructor personnel. I’ve always been of the opinion that airlines should not hire persons to handle flying an airplane only in excellent, CAVU weather, unlimited visibility, calm winds, and all equipment and systems working to factory specs … if truth be told, the hiring should provide pilots who have an ability to achieve competently professional results when some or all of those factors are well below what is desired and perhaps well into what none of us ever wants – and handles ANY of it, or, heaven-forbid, ALL of it, at ANY time, ALL of the time, and do so with ‘poster-child’ results. It is also my opinion that this simply cannot be achieved without a robust, detailed, and rigorous training and evaluation program. Sound unfair? Ask the Mom whose oldest child is flying off to college; … ask a family who is waving bye-bye to grandparents who are first-time flyers off on a second honeymoon … for me, there simply can be zero pre-known compromises.

I do appreciate your taking the time to express your thoughts.

A few points.

The responsibility of the Captain position is a big one. The company will not let him/her on the line if not squared away.

While you are very frustrated and upset about the fact that you had to carry him through training and he isn't good enough to make the grade in your eyes, keep in mind, lots of folks are watching this guy.

The instructors talk off line. What is said in a training folder isn't just left to chance. These guys will talk, the CP will talk to the check airman, and so on.

This captain likely won't make it out of IOE or will get hung up in IOE. Also, the FED ride is a big deal. That ride takes a snap shot of where the new Captain is in relation to where he should be: judgement, airmanship, leadership, SA, the whole thing is looked at.

It is considered to be bad form to go to PRO STAN in the school house/training realm. It's your job to do your job. Be a good student, be a good support/sim partner, and that's it. What happens in the school house stays in the school house.

If this were a line issue, I would say PRO STAN would be a great route.

What was the final outcome?

Go play golf. Enjoy your retirement.

You’re not the only person who has voiced such opinions. However, as I’m sure you would recognize, it would be far better if those who actually ‘play golf’ were a bit more aware of those around them – particularly, of those who know the game, know the rules and regulations for the particular course, and have repeatedly demonstrated both their knowledge and experience. In that event, those ‘on-lookers’ might better understand that those without such a background, those without the experience that their comments seek to slight, might be a bit less dismissive toward those who have “been there; done that,” realizing that those knowledgeable and experienced folks can play – and have played – a good game, and are not limited to just ‘talking’ one.