Whoop whoop, pull up.

[Brantford Beech Boy]

BeechBoy, it sounds to me like you are very impressed with yourself.

Not impressed with myself. I simply take my responsibilities seriously. I am unimpressed with narrow minded fools who paint large groups with the same brush based on exposure to few.

I however do not feel the same reverence for your position as you seem to.

I do not feel any reverence for the position. It simply is a job.

You cease to be a company employee, and become morally beholden to the minister. Really? Does this mean if you get fired over an unrelated matter, but happen to be acting in your capacity as a "Federal Agent", you can continue to hold your position?

No, if I were to get fired, I would be fired. My position of ACP confers no special privileges.

Does it come with a gun and a badge, or just a badge?

No gun. No badge. Just blue tights and a red cape....

The only reason I can think of that you would take personal offense to my previous statement, is that you consider yourself and your fellow "ACPs" to occupy a higher moral and intellectual plane than the rest of us lowly pilots. Get over yourself. It's too bad we can't all have officious twerps working for us who have such reverence for the sacred trust that has been bestowed upon them, and who can ignore the earthly pressures of the airline management environment by taking comfort in the enormity of the powers conferred upon them by the minister and indeed, her Majesty herself!

No, I don't believe I (or any other ACP) occupy any higher moral and/or intellectual plane than the rest of, well anyone. It seems to me that "rest of the lowly pilots" are the ones who place ACPs on a pedestal (however unjustified).
I would require an office to be officious.
What pressure from managment? If it exists, I have yet to feel it.
Met Liz the other day, she sends her warmest.

Too bad the corporate brothers probably don't have as much respect for the lofty office of the ACP as you do. I think you would be surprised and a little disillusioned if you were aware of the professional ethics of some of your brother ACPs around the country. I envy your naivete.

I probably would be surprised. I have yet to meet an ACP who has not shared my sense of responsibility, but them again I lead a sheltered life.



BBB

[OceansEdge]

... I probably would be surprised. I have yet to meet an ACP who has not shared my sense of responsibility, but them again I lead a sheltered life.
BBB

I guess we both do ...

I'm with you on this - it's an added responsibility - nothing more, nothing less and I've yet to meet anyone who doesn't take that responsibility, and what it implies, seriously

[Meatservo]

A CCP is tied to one company and can only renew PPC/IFT for the company at which he/she is employed. When TC decided to cease performing rides, the CCP changed to the ACP program. Essentially the same but we are lo longer "tied" to the company and can perform PPC/IFT for anyone. No permission is required from our company in order to perform PPC/IFT at any other company.


BBB

I wasn't aware of this. I didn't realise there was a distinction when I posted previously.

Hey, I've been through some pretty lame-o rides with CCPs, and at some pretty "reputable" airlines, too! I still think there are lots of people out there, perfectly ordinary, reasonable-seeming people, who give easy rides to the people they work with. If you're not one of them, then hats off to you, but please don't presume to take offense on behalf of an entire group of people just because you are one. If there isn't something superlative about yourself that you have in common with "ACPs" everywhere that sets you apart from other pilots, then you have no right to claim your honour has been offended by a remark about people giving "gimme" rides. Everybody knows when their intelligence has been insulted by someone who can't even be bothered to administer a challenging test, and I am saying this happens a lot with company check pilots, and I am opining that we would all be better served if the evaluators were impartial, which you are not able to prove if you are on the payroll of that company. Further, I am opining that it is hard to prove you object to testing rather than open-ended training without seeming like you just don't perform well on tests. There's nothing wrong with a test at the end of training, unless you feel like you might not pass it.

I'm glad you manage to bring integrity to your position.
I still think you sound pretty self-important though, if not officious.

[teacher]

"Meatservo" I'm not against tests for initial training. I'm referring to the constant recurrent PPCs that are done every 6 months (or every 12 and a LOFT). Retesting someone on a job they do all the time is a waste, retraining and reviewing things they might not see every day but should know how to do is not.

[Meatservo]

I agree with you on the value of retraining and reviewing. I do not agree that it is unnecessary to quantify that person's performance with a practical evaluation of the individual's skill level, otherwise known as a test. Your performance is being quantified by the upstairs brothers in other areas, believe me, might as well have something to do with your actual performance in the cockpit go in your record file too.

[Brantford Beech Boy]

...and I am opining that we would all be better served if the evaluators were impartial, which you are not able to prove if you are on the payroll of that company.

I doubt anything I post here will offer the kind of "proof" you seek of impartiality.
of course you're probably aware that as an ACP, we undergo an annual "ride" to provide us with feedback and to allow TC to monitor our performance (hence the term Monitor Ride).
A new feature of the monitor ride (started last October/Novemberish) is to have the TC Inspector sit down with the ACP prior to the ride and go thru EVERY ride the ACP has conducted in the previous 12 months. EVERY mark we give (the 1,2,3&4s), EVERY comment we make on the flight test reports is reviewed. We are graded on numerous criteria ranging from the marks we give (we get flagged if the number of each mark falls outside national statistical norms) to our level of financial interest in the company we work for. At the end, we are given a score. If the score is high enough, we get EXTRA attention from the TC inspectors.

Yes I get paid extra to perform my role as an ACP (by whichever company I'm doing the rides for), but bear in mind this would tend toward failures, not easy passes. I get paid whether the candidate passes or fails (including managment types) and I get paid again for a re-ride. So where is the incentive to pass? (should one be so unscrupulous). I know this is how my fellow ACPs are compensated at my company. Can't speak to others.

I'm glad you manage to bring integrity to your position.
I still think you sound pretty self-important though, if not officious.

I try. Thanks for noticing, and if by "officious" you mean an asshole, you hit the nail on the head. I even have the t-shirt to prove it......

BBB

[fish4life]

I agree with both sides of the coin, although I will have to say that with the company I work for we do much more than what is required for a ride during training. As well we get a lot of situation training that a flight test examiner would never give because it isn't on the sheet with a box beside it.

PS... I agree ACP's are an important position and I have respect for anyone in that position because if someone crashes a plane and it got traced back that maybe they never did well on their rides it could mean big trouble for the examiner had they given e a "gimmie ride". I'm sure that is in the back of the mind of every ACP and they won't just pass someone because they feel like they "have to"

[Meatservo]

A new feature of the monitor ride (started last October/Novemberish) is to have the TC Inspector sit down with the ACP prior to the ride and go thru EVERY ride the ACP has conducted in the previous 12 months. EVERY mark we give (the 1,2,3&4s), EVERY comment we make on the flight test reports is reviewed. We are graded on numerous criteria ranging from the marks we give (we get flagged if the number of each mark falls outside national statistical norms) to our level of financial interest in the company we work for. At the end, we are given a score. If the score is high enough, we get EXTRA attention from the TC inspectors.

BBB

Well, if this is true, then I am duly impressed. We must have some other kind of guys around here. I find it all a little hard to believe, but I do sort of lack faith to a greater extent than an average middle-class white guy, so never mind what I think. I guess I'll just have to learn a little trust in the system. It sure sounds better than requiring the system to "provide feedback and monitor performance" for individual pilots. Easier and cheaper, at any rate.

[Meatservo]

A new feature of the monitor ride (started last October/Novemberish) is to have the TC Inspector sit down with the ACP prior to the ride and go thru EVERY ride the ACP has conducted in the previous 12 months. EVERY mark we give (the 1,2,3&4s), EVERY comment we make on the flight test reports is reviewed. We are graded on numerous criteria ranging from the marks we give (we get flagged if the number of each mark falls outside national statistical norms) to our level of financial interest in the company we work for. At the end, we are given a score. If the score is high enough, we get EXTRA attention from the TC inspectors.

BBB

Well, if this is true, then I am duly impressed. We must have some other kind of guys around here. I find it all a little hard to believe, but I do sort of lack faith to a greater extent than an average middle-class white guy, so never mind what I think. I guess I'll just have to learn a little trust in the system. It sure sounds better than requiring the system to "provide feedback and monitor performance" for individual pilots. Easier and cheaper, at any rate.