Failing a friend

[pelmet]

Airlines in Canada ‘on the precipice of something bad,’ say critics

The chances of passing the twice-yearly competency test required of all commercial airline pilots in Canada seems to hinge at least partly on who is doing the testing: a Transport Canada inspector, or a fellow commercial pilot.

Critics say that it's a longstanding pattern that represents just one of a growing number of weaknesses in the system for overseeing aviation safety in Canada – weaknesses that, when put together, could help explain a recent spike in accidents and incidents in the air.

"If there was ever a time for Transport Canada to get into the cockpits, to get back to providing oversight, to get back to providing checks on a regular basis, the time is now," said Greg McConnell, national chair of the Canadian Federal Pilots Association (CFPA), which represents government pilots and inspectors.
There were already mounting concerns that a new, company-centric approach to airline safety – ushered in about a decade ago – puts too much onus on the airlines to monitor themselves. Cuts to Transport Canada's budget and inspector training programs in the years since have also been flagged by the CFPA.
Now, new statistics tabled in the House of Commons reveal that failure rates for what's known as the "pilot proficiency test" are generally lower if the pilot is being evaluated by a colleague – someone they might even consider a friend.

Failing a friend

The overall fail rate for the proficiency test remains low — fewer than 5 per cent of pilots usually flunk it.
Commercial airline pilots have to take it twice a year, and the average failure rate between 2005 and 2016 when the test was administered by Transport Canada's inspectors was 3.96 per cent.

But Transport Canada doesn't have nearly enough inspectors to do all the testing required, so for the last 25 years the department has followed the common international practice of using "check pilots." These pilots are employed by commercial airlines like Westjet or Air Canada, and have been approved to administer the tests. They often work for the same company as the pilot they are evaluating.

Their average fail rate, over the same time period of 2005 to 2016, was 1.85 per cent. That's half the rate of the Transport Canada inspectors.

Asked about the discrepancy, Transport Canada cited volume. The department said that its inspectors carry out about 300 tests a year. Approved check pilots conduct 15,000.

"As such, it is not unusual to see a higher failure rate in pilot proficiency check results when a pilot is evaluated by Transport Canada inspectors," the department said in a statement.

McConnell at the CFPA isn't buying that explanation. "When a (Transport Canada) inspector does a check ride, he’s simply measuring the candidate’s performance against the standard," said McConnell, who has more than two decades of flying experience.

Time is money
There are also issues of time, convenience and – perhaps most importantly – money, he added. Failing a pilot means grounding them, and potentially sending them back into a flight simulator to practice.

If a company doesn’t own their own simulators, they need to pay to use one and often pay extra to cover the pilot's hotel room and per diems during re-training. The company might even have to adjust its flight schedule, shuffling other pilots around to compensate. Transport Canada's inspectors don't care about any of that, McConnell noted.

The pilot proficiency test measures everything from a pilot's basic knowledge of an aircraft to their ability to react to an engine malfunction. Keeping the plane at a consistent speed and altitude is also critical, and barring circumstances beyond a pilot's control (like weather), any mistake can lead to a failed test.

NDP MP Robert Aubin, who sits on the House of Commons transportation committee and requested the failure-rate data from the government last November, said he doesn't believe that pilots are more "stressed" being tested by a government inspector.

"So you can’t tell me that because the evaluation is happening with Transport Canada, that it’s more stressful, that there’s a higher failure rate ... In my opinion, all of the evaluations should be done by Transport Canada."

Inspectors who don't fly?
Beyond the discrepancy in failure rates, McConnell said, his organization has also been tracking other problems with the way pilots and airlines are monitored by the federal government.

For one, the fleet of aircraft that Transport Canada uses to keep its inspectors trained up (so that they, in turn, can properly evaluate pilots) has been cut from 42 planes to 14 over the last decade.

Transport Canada's civil aviation flying program, which McConnell says ensures inspectors' pilot licences stay current, has seen its budget sliced in half, from $7.9 million in 2008-09 to $3.5 million in 2016-17.

Last spring, the CFPA commissioned an independent survey of its membership, which includes Transport Canada inspectors, plus departmental investigators and other licensed government pilots.

A full 67 per cent of the inspectors who responded said it had been at least a year since they'd flown a real plane. On average, they hadn't acted as "pilot-in-command" of an aircraft for three years.

The CFPA says it presented the findings to the government, but received little positive feedback. Transport Canada told Global News that safety remains its top priority and that Canada’s aviation safety record is internationally recognized. Resources are deployed based on risk assessment and are constantly being re-evaluated and modified, it explained.

As far as ongoing training for its inspectors, Transport Canada says it's relying increasingly on sophisticated flight simulators.
"To ensure aviation safety, there are a number of additional training and licensing requirements with which all Canadian pilots must comply," the department said.

But according to the NDP's Aubin, simulators aren't the same as real flying. He said pilots have told him that the machines remain incapable of replicating one key variable: the certain knowledge that a mistake could result in catastrophe.

"Year after year, they’re diminishing or cutting the budgets at Transport Canada for inspections. So how to do better with fewer resources? ... Obviously we’re taking an approach that’s always retroactive, instead of proactive."

Spike in accidents, incidents
In spite of the government's assurances, newly released statistics seem to bear out critics' fears. Until last year, the number of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft were on a steady decline in Canada.

But in February, the Transportation Safety Board revealed that there had been 94 incidents involving commercial aircraft operators in 2017, a jump from the 63 recorded in 2016 and much higher than the five-year average of 79.

Meanwhile, Transport Canada is looking at scaling back the degree to which it independently evaluates the industry "check pilots" who conduct the pilot proficiency tests on the department's behalf.

"On-site" monitoring of some check pilots will soon be shared with the airlines, the department confirmed, although no firm date has been set for that change. It was supposed to happen on April 1, but that has been "deferred."

Regardless, that just pushes the industry one step closer to self-regulation, said McConnell. "It’s a good (regulatory) system, it requires more vigilance, it requires more oversight on behalf of transport Canada," he said. "You need to have the cops on the street."

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/travel/news/a ... spartandhp

[confusedalot]

I have flown with strong pilots, I have flown with weak pilots. I have never flown with dangerous pilots over 36 years. Dangerous pilots do not get licences in the first place, so the system actually works. You can fail a ride for the most insignificant of issues. like making a mistake on an SOP call that does not compromise aviation safety.

And this, from a former tc employee and industry check pilot. And, one who has failed a ride because I actually went along with a copilots interpretation of what a convoluted holding clearance actually meant! (That came from a TC inspector checking a check pilot, lots of stress in the sim for no good reason).

The article is sensationalism designed to scare the population, and designed for a hidden agenda.......If you really want to crack down, why not test every single private pilot on a regular basis? Because an inspector could not care less about getting into a 172, but wants the glory of climbing into a big jet instead of being deskbound.

How many lethal accidents have occured due to the alleged lack of oversight anyways? It is not mentioned.

[Schooner69A]

What Mr McConnell fails to mention is that all flight tests on TC Inspectors are conducted "In House" by company check pilots. The same type of company check pilot denigrated by Mr McConnell. What is the failure rate of TC Inspectors...?

I was a check pilot in the RCAF and was awarded that designation after a six-week course. The TC course to acquire the same designation (if one still exists) is measured in hours.

Having been a TC Inspector and a corporate pilot, "Company Check Pilot" results are grounded a bit more in reality than the TC results.

TC tests these days are conducted by Inspectors whose proficiency pales in comparison to that of Company Check Pilots conducting the same test. And this may be reflected in the slight difference between test results. Because that's all there is: a slight difference.

However, I will agree with Mr McConnell on one point: there DOES need to be more Inspectors. To answer the phones and do the damn paper work! (;>0)

PS However, you don't need people at the level of inspector to do that...


John Swallow

[TG]

I never understood this necessity of doing “flight test/PPC/PCC”
I don’t recall trucks/bus drivers or ships crews having to do that.
Same with all the medical profession who literally deal with your life without having to “prove” their competence every 6 month or so.

You do your training. If at the end of your training you are deemed competent by the ones giving you the training, what is the point of a flight test?


To officially tick the boxes?


Pointless.

[cjp]

Funny, I read the same article the other day and ended up sitting there scratching my head wondering what he was talking about. He referenced a statistic regarding increasing incidents and related it to ACP's failure rates vs. TC's during a PPC.

I thought at first they were referring to the 6 month peer-2-peer checks that some operators do to satisfy the TC requirements - in the corporate world usually filled out by your drinking buddy.

If I had to put a finger on it (with regards to an increasing number of incidents), I would relate this to the revolving door many operators are experiencing at the moment, which puts an increased demand on their training departments. They are likely considering candidates with less than ideal experience to fill roles they wouldn't have dreamed of 5 years ago, again adding stress to the training department.

I know when we have hired in the last few months the resumes that come across are few, and sometimes less than ideal - but you work with what you've got.

[goingnowherefast]

The point of the test is to get a 2nd opinion. Why not make it an official second opinion and send a report to TC?

As for the failure rate, check pilots need to have been trained on that type. Do TC inspectors need to have any experience on the aircraft type they're doing the ride on? I'd wager most of the failures happen because of lack of familiarity with the SOPs, the aircraft, the company operation. Then nobody is going to argue with an inspector, so the failing grade stands.

I wonder what percentage of people don't get recommended for a PPC and/or undergo additional training before a ride.

[Heliian]

The checks are to improve competency by highlighting what the individual pilots may be lacking in and giving feedback. They shouldnt be viewed like your first flight test to get a license. They should really just remove the pass/fail and merely highlight deficiencies.

I agree, bad pilots aren't going to even make it that far. You wouldn't get hired and even then, in less than 6 months you'll know exactly who the bad pilots are. I am satisfied with the current way things are done, at least from my view in the helicopter industry.

[Victory]

It's sometimes not a friend but the owner of the company and the one paying for the gas. Who's going to say that was ok but you failed an exercise let's spend thousands of dollars to do it again tomorrow.

[Eric Janson]

I have flown with strong pilots, I have flown with weak pilots. I have never flown with dangerous pilots over 36 years. Dangerous pilots do not get licences in the first place, so the system actually works.

That may be the case in Canada and most Western nations but that's certainly not the case in other areas of the world.

I have flown with dangerous Pilots and the system prevents them from being fired.

Here's an example:-

https://www.thelocal.de/20160821/sri-la ... -frankfurt

This wasn't the first time this had happened or even the first time he did this in Frankfurt.

[pelmet]

I have flown the sim with several other pilots that were in my opinion incompetent, at least for that day(or for a string of days). Only one was captain on type, and passed the ride he should have failed. He did have a lot of time and experience and is retired now.

A couple of others failed(one got fired as he was a newhire to the company). Another was an upgrade candidate but had been a King Air captain in the past at another company. The absolute worst was also a current King Air captain in the same company upgrading to an F/O on a larger type. After a disastrous string of sim sessions, he actually crashed several times the day before his checkride and knew few of his memory procedures in the debrief. Somehow, he passed the ride and is now a captain on another type although he failed again when trying to move to something bigger. If he had failed, it would have been a time-consuming to get a replacement and the replacement candidate was not liked by the sim instructor. On the other hand, the guy who passed was quite entertaining outside of the training environment.

I suppose the actual worst case was someone in the company I never flew with but had a history of failures and rumours. He was finally passed by a check guy that he got along with better than the earlier check guys. The end result was a fatal accident. A classic falling through the cracks and the person I immediately thought of when I read this article along with the previously mentioned guy. There is an element of truth to the article although there is no guarantee that a problem guy wouldn't have had a good day when the TC inspector was in town.