I had a squadron mate that flunked out of a US legacy in week 2 and we could have predicted it happening—poor CRM and a big head over his background. Recently, an operation I’m well familiar with had a well experienced pilot fail to be recommended for his rating ride, now out of work.
That basically sums up the reasons I don’t like using historical records. As they say on the stock market past performed does not guarantee future returns.
The hiring process which includes the interview, sim
ride, through to their final check after training is what should weed people out or bring them up to standard. You can and do have perfectly capable pilots just not suited to a particular operation, and you have airlines sending pilots out to the line without reaching the desired standard because MBA types do not budget for spare simulator time.
Whenever any system - in this case prior training and employment data verification - is suggested, one has to look at unintended consequences as well.
If an employee asks our company for a referral when seeking out new employment we just provide a letter stating the period they were employed. We provide no details on their career progression or reasons for leaving.
Every pilot has multiple bad days through their career, and the training environment is where these should be identified and rectified. If a pilot is provided training to be competent after failing an item that should be the end of it. It has little relevance on future performance. No pilot comes to work to perform poorly, and if provided the correct training and support will be a better pilot if the fail something and get training. At the end of the day every pilot wants to do a good job and go home to their family.
What I suspect is happening is some carriers don’t do the initial or remedial training and pass people that shouldn’t be passed.
I would be very interested to see the budget this airline has set aside for remedial simulator training.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News