Okay here is the scenario:

We passed the check ride however:

Capt Moron spent all 9 of our sim sessions making excuses for his poor performance, getting spoon fed by the instructors and check airmen who worked with us. Meanwhile, I am getting stressed out over the incompetence in the left seat and having to catch so many errors.

I wound up getting sick. He goes on to do session 10 and is given two extra sessions to as the check airmen were in no way going to recommend him for the ride.

I get the unfortunate luck of being paired up with him again for my LOFT and and then check ride.

We passed. But it was a BARELY pass due to a major procedural screw up of his that I failed to catch until the last minute where I could save it.

He still has to pass IOE of course.

I am wondering if I should call our professional standards committee. Or, as one instructor friend has advised, let the system work as he is probably on a watch list with the training department.

I hate throwing someone under the bus, but it is a little hard when the guy keeps wandering into the road on his own.

 

Probably not.

1. Pro Stans is typically for personality/cockpit climate types of issues and will often not even touch safety issues. Reason being that the union doesn't want or need responsibility/liability for determining if a pilot is safe to fly, nor should they. That is inherently the company's responsibility. Pro Stans might be able to give you some advice.

2. The training dept. and therefore the company is clearly aware of where this guy stands, and hopefully IOE will serve as a backstop if needed.

Getting involved could easily blow up in your face.

If the company is so desperate that they are intentionally pushing dangerous pilots through the process, your only real recourse is probably to contact the FAA. Some companies have anonymous safety reporting systems, but even that might not tell the company something they didn't already know.

I assume you already 121 experience? If not, probably best to let this one play out, observe and learn.

 

If you are a new hire, I would say let it go and let the system do its job.

From what it sounds like, he is probably already a topic with the instructors and check airmen. If it were me, I would let it slide for a few months and then go back at talk to the instructor and get some feedback. I reserve pro-standards for stuff that guys do on the line and then it is almost a last resort.
In any event, sit on it for a little while before you decide what you need to do.

I can almost guarantee this guy is gonna talk smack about you to his friends/co-pilots because of his inability/slackness. Had it happen.

 

Have a beer with him and celebrate!! You both passed.

By going to Pro Standards, are you suggesting that your evaluation of him is more credible than your instructors and check airmen?

Support your fellow aviator. I have seen excellent aviators struggle at times in the simulator. I have also seen sh**ty pilots excel in the simulator.

Your instructors and check airmen saw the same performance you did. They did their job, got him trained, evaluated him, and he passed. The training department, with their instructors and check airmen, is responsible for his performance evaluation, not you.

My advice, let it go...

 

Forget about it and move on. If it was that much of a concern, you should have brought it up during training. You didn't, you both passed, that ship has sailed. You'd look like a tool at this point...

 

I wonder if maybe every captain this guy flies with will be a moron.

 

No reason for you to get stressed. The instructor/examiner will see what is going on. Leave them to do their job, and you concentrate on doing the best you can.

I had this situation when I did my A330 type rating. The guy in the left hand seat kept freezing up at the controls and panicking.
On several occasions, I had to say "I have control and communications" because he was making such a hash of things.

Part way through the final sim check, the examiner stopped the simulator and told the captain that I was having to flying single pilot operations in an A330 because the captain was so incompetent. The examiner actually apologized to me for having been put in this situation.

Cut a long story short, I got heaps of praise from the examiner during the de-brief, and the captain got suspended.

Truth be told, this is probably a good learning curve for you. Unfortunately, you are going to come across the occasional pilot like this on the line.

 

So this advice is not for the probational. The way I handle that situation is with a nice long dose of sick list. If the training managers won't split you, it's time to take it to the self help level. I had this exact situation back in 2000 when I did my initial B-777 training. I gutted it out and tried to help the weak captain. He was unwilling to listen to anybody and especially not me. Long story short after 25 days of hell we were split the day before the type rating check ride. I passed with flying colors the next day and he went on to do multiple additional training sessions. Thank god he is now retired.

I will never put myself through that situation again.

 

Exactly. Have a good attitude and do the best you can. Sometimes training with someone who isn't ready can help you know the jet even better (since you're gonna be the default tutor at the hotel). I had a similar situation but just kept working...then was asked to apply to the training department. (I wasn't interested but took that as validation for working hard to pull more than one person's weight--they saw it)

 

It may well be due to the fact that I’ve now retired and don’t have to worry about “irate feelings” from a co-worker any longer … but I can’t believe that were I to have been in your situation when I first started, that I would feel any different from what I feel today. What you’re describing is happening more and more throughout the airline business around the world … and quite frankly, I am of the opinion that its only due to the fact that most of those finding themselves in those positions are more interested in protecting their own “6” than in doing “the right thing.”

Yes … I’m fully prepared to acknowledge that this might sound unceremoniously condescending … sorry about that … but it’s the truth, nonetheless.

Flight training has become something that everyone must endure to get to “the line,” where money is made, fun is had, and personal integrity is advertised –and recognized– by –and only by- the number of stripes on the jacket and the number of hours in the log book. Well … that’s hogwash … pure and simple. I’ve commented on similar subjects previously … and the majority of any ‘change’ I’ve seen over the years, is to encounter such idiocy more and more frequently. Flight training is a terribly important aspect to safety of flight … and I include in this both ‘initial’ AND ‘recurrent’ training. Training is where a (student) pilot is provided the opportunity to learn, assimilate, and eventually USE everything that has been taught – and through that, becomes more and more able to see, feel, and/or sense what the airplane is doing ALL of the time … and based on that recognition, is able to apply the appropriate control to maintain or adjust (and incredibly more important - to RE-gain - if necessary) the desired condition of the airplane … and I use the term ‘condition’ to mean the aircraft attitude, altitude, speed (in the air or on the ground), and direction … including any progressing change to any/all of those aspects. After all … this IS the process that each of us, as pilots, are supposedly trained to do.

When there is a problem in recognizing an established condition or in making desired adjustments to modify (or maintain) that condition – is when aircraft control is on the brink of being lost. Every time the pilot flying desires to make a change to one or more of these ‘condition’ aspects, he/she must have a distinct understanding of exactly what must be done and how that result has been, or is being, accomplished.
I almost hate to acknowledge it, but it appears that flight instructors are becoming (at least in part) “…agents to acquire a passing score.” I probably don’t need to say it … BUT … THAT is NOT the role of a flight instructor! Not every person through the ‘applicant door’ with the minimum hours in a log book are guaranteed to become the kind of proficient pilot that each airplane/airline demands and deserves – but that doesn’t change that basic requirement.

The issue about which I have been pounding tables, figuratively perhaps but regularly nonetheless, throughout my career, has been specifically focused on simulation that could and would be authorized for training and/or evaluation of pilots … stressing that each specific device should be designed, built, tested, and authorized for use for training and/or for evaluation of required tasks when each simulator is found to be appropriately capable. This kind of approach would yield a range of such devices … with lesser technically capable devices used for tasks applicable to the lesser levels of certificates, and the most technically capable devices for tasks applicable to the most advanced levels of certificates. At least equally important, perhaps more so, are requirements that I have regularly included in my critiques, my criticisms, and my recommendations. Those are the following:
1. each ‘simulation device’ must meet diligently defined criteria;
2. the instructors and evaluators must be provided, and must satisfactorily complete, a specifically defined course of training applicable for each device they are authorized to use;
4. the training must consist of both initial and recurrent formats including the specific capabilities and limitations for each device they may use; and
5. Should some aspect of a simulation device change, each instructor and evaluator must be trained on that changed aspect.

I fully realize that there are those out there who would, given the opportunity and bank account, always do “the right thing” regarding training. However, that “bank account” issue is ever-present, and if money can be saved more-so by doing one thing than can be saved by doing another thing … given the option, the greater savings is likely to get the nod. With my having worked on the development of more than a few regulations, I have come to recognize essentially three (3) things:
1. Unless whatever additional training is required by regulation … particularly if it costs money (and invariably it will cost) … whatever “it” happens to be will likely not be incorporated. However, if there are very evident benefits that will accrue with “its” being adopted and put into practice, “it” may be incorporated without a requirement to do so. It would be wonderful if all additional regulations would save money … but, the fact is, we function in the real world.
2. Despite its importance, the safety features of a proposed regulation are not always the aspect that is focused on by those having to incorporate that regulation into their daily operations.
3. When it comes to establishing a regulation, it has been my experience that asking those who will have to ultimately comply with that regulation to be integrally involved in the development of that regulation has produced more effective, realistic, and worthwhile regulations, that are also structured such that the cost is minimized to the greatest extent.
In my opinion, one of the glaring absences is the requirement for instructors and evaluators to be trained, initially and recurrently, on the specific capabilities, the short-comings, and the level of realism offered by each of the individual simulators they will use in the conduct of the training or evaluation they will conduct. Not all simulators for a given airplane type, even those manufactured by the same company and sold to the same specific operation (airline or training center) will necessarily have the identical characteristics, have identical idiosyncrasies, “feel” the same, perform the same, etc. Each simulator is a ‘different creature,’ and each one must be understood, treated, and relied upon accordingly.

Clearly there are few professionals in the aviation business who do not believe that he or she has a good grasp of what is and what is not the most important aspect to a particular function or feature and how that particular aspect should be addressed. However, one of the things I’ve come to understand is that all kinds of ideas, concerns, and cautions have merit (some considerably so) and sometimes, those other ideas, methods, and/or suggestions are often superior to what was originally considered. Simply, it is verifiably true that hearing such comments and having them explained from the perspective of the person making those comments, or suggesting other methods, or posing concerns for how something may be interpreted or incorporated that may ultimately influence the overall result negatively, more often than not, provides a more thorough and thoughtful consideration, allows a better worded and a better described, more readily accepted, and therefore, more viable and productive regulation than could have been imagined by any particular party on their own.

As of now, in the US at least, for all intents and purposes, the only regulatory requirement for a specific “recurrent training” curriculum is found in airline training programs, and I believe it is logical to have at least some kind of similar requirement for all grades of pilot certificates and piloting operations. As we all know, airlines openly advertise their ability to provide transportation services from point to point for a fee … and a private pilot would not generally be in a position to negatively impact the lives or well-being of those beyond his/her own family and friends. But even in those circumstances, those family members and friends are very likely trusting the regulator to have ensured that the pilot in whom they will be entrusting their well-being, has all the appropriate knowledge, skills, and abilities to ensure their safety. Additionally, in both cases the flight involved very likely would over-fly unknown people and properties. Should an accident occur, those people and properties may be equally in jeopardy. Personally, I believe that should be understood. The question then, might be should there be at least some effort to ensure that the proficiency levels in both cases are at an acceptable level? Of course, that level should be commensurate with the original proficiency level required for the pilot certificate involved. There have often been attempts to include in the regulations some kind of recent-experience requirement … but, up to now, those efforts have been abandoned. Regardless of this fact, I believe that many, if not most, in this industry would acknowledge that there is likely to be at least some additional effort that might be considered to be beneficial in this regard.

Also, it is not my intent to trash or restrict, or make it awkward to participate in what is commonly known as ‘recreational flying’ – and I think we need to ensure that we do not advocate undue or unnecessary requirements that would significantly alter this area of the industry … but the question that inevitably arises is what is ‘undue’ and what is ‘unnecessary’ when it comes to pilot competency and capability. I don’t profess to have the ultimate answer – and it may be that any specific answer would have too many contingencies or require too many alternatives to be able to be clearly understood … but that potential should NOT deter professionals from making an attempt to do the right thing.