The issue isn't that we can't adapt to change the issue is that the training to do so is inadequate..No, non existent. One day you show up and everything that you've been doing and trained to use has changed and you are supposed to get everything you need from a poorly written one hour computer "training" session.

When CAL changed from whatever your old system was to the QRH did you get any training on how and where to use it? For instance did you know that the Eng Severe damage check list is NOT listed under the engine section but under fire protection? Of course you didn't unless somebody told you.

I like a QRH and have flown at two airlines that used them. But JEZZUZ you need at least a minute or two of training just to know where everything is.

BTW UAL used a QRC that had most of your major stuff with immediate action items on a card that referred you to page in the flight manual that had the expanded check list.

Of course the 777 and the Bus has ECL or EICAM that takes care of all or most of that paper check list garbage.

 

So you had a card that then referenced a manual? Interesting.

I know you don't have flight kits/bags anymore, but I do find a QRH system less complicated. Other than the 6 or 7 memory items on the 737, we just see the issue and pull out the QRH for all. I don't have to reference one thing than wrestle the manual out of my bag to finish it up.

Maybe just preference, but I do agree that transitioning from using one method to using another does present a safety and learning curve.

 

Agree. It actually seems like a good idea. It worked well enough in a single seat & marginal/no autopilot airplane. But you do have to train to it! People showing up for a PC and expected to take a check ride w/this new methodology !?!
1. Depress clutch 2. Shift gears

 

EWRflyr,

I agree 100%. When we adopted the QRC big questions would always arise on the airplanes with electronic checklist. Do I start with the QRC, ECL, Flt manual. So I finish the QRC, then I have to do the ECL and finally reference the manual for the performance calculations for a abnormal config landing. Pure and total chaos with books all over the simulator. I like the ORH, one stop shopping and yet our simpletons can't understand simple!

My fellow UA pilots appear to be lazy and untrainable when it comes to change. For a large cross section of our group perhaps it is because they didn't bring a lot to the table when they were hired? Not being a flamer but to ignore that fact is to ignore the elephant in the room. They just don't understand how to train for something new. We had to change our checklist in the late 80's early 90's to be the same response for all fleets. Too many could not adapt to different fleet specific calls and responses.

L

 

The argument is with the way the change is being implemented and the scope of the change coupled with minimal training and virtually zero input from the guys driving the plane.

Moving to a QRH, no big deal.
Changing a ton of procedural stuff and SOPs with the stroke of a pen and lip service to safety, big deal.

Glad I'm off the fleet.

Skewering and belittling guys who happen to have a different opinion shows a fair amount of amount of hubris in my book.

 

As usual, you are missing the point. Why should we accept "min running" this training? The QRH changeover has the potential to be an improvement, but it was introduced with insufficient training, is poorly organized and has errors and omissions which could have been fixed if they had even one line pilot look at it before Phase 1 started. Phase 2 involves major changes to flows involving muscle memory, which have required demo of proficiency in the paper trainer or FBS before advancing on to the sim during transition training. Now that is no longer important?? It's interesting that the POI required TK to add 2 hours in the FBS to the 767 PT syllabus so every pilot in the fleet now demos proficiency in fuel panel configuration/cross feed because a few crews screwed it up, but has no problem with training by book and CBT for major changes in crew duties and flows.

You are way out of line with the "lazy and untrainable" slam. "Not being a flamer"?? GMAFB, you're being a flaming ahole! Your comments on this forum show you would be a great candidate for UCH management (if you're not already there), and I'll bet if there was an award for Domicile Douche Bag of the Year the poor F/Os that get stuck flying with you would make sure you got it.

 

Yeah, Lambourne, you're back on the list.

 

Precisely!! Arguing out of their minds about something that is not the question at the moment! Are they philosophical discussions to be had about one procedure vs another? Off course!! But the subject of contention happens to be something entirely different, IE. to promote a more comprehensive method of merging and delivering the process of training, and the current offering raises enough questions regarding safety. Hopefully the arguments are solid enough for a judge's injunction.

 

Why were the UA pilots the only ones that needed a checklist to do a fuel balance? We can't even do what other crews flying the same plane did in a normal op without screwing it up. The talent pool has been tainted significantly over the years. Just take a peak at a planning table for a PEK or HKG trip.

Maybe you can't teach really old dogs new tricks. Perhaps they can get someone to come out and hold your hand and tell you everything is going to be okay. Should they give everybody a trophy for completing the training? Just like the kids in T-Ball. "There are no loser's here. You guys are all great".



L

 

I remember seeing Bunkies on the 400 dicking with the fuel panel because there was a 200lb imbalance. Don't "F" with it unless you have to is my motto.