Back in the day, I was very fortunate to have been selected as a Flight Instructor and Check Airman on our DC-9 and then later the MD-80 fleet.
It was one of the most gratifying experiences in my career during which time I learned as much from the great people I worked with as (hopefully) they did from me.
Before the days of Level C and D training devices, and absent an approved Zero Flight Time Training (ZFTT) Program, we would work with our initial students for six periods in the less-than full motion simulator, administer a proficiency check, conduct a LOFT, and then take some of them out to the airport in the middle of the night for simulated approaches, go arounds, and touch and goes.
The Instructor would spend most of his/her time those evenings on the edge of their seat with hands poised in close proximity to the control yoke wondering what the pilot in training would do in the final 50’ of the back-of-the-clock landing as well as how far to let it go as a “learning experience” before intervening.
Most of the time, everything went well with both student and Instructor coming away from the entire training experience with a renewed sense of confidence and pride.
However, sometimes the learning process didn’t go quite as smoothly as the training or checking syllabus suggested. Sometimes we just needed a bit more time for the student to gain confidence before being able to demonstrate the required level of proficiency.
Sometimes we needed to try a new teaching technique in order to put our point across and sometimes we just needed to change the chemistry between student and instructor in order to get the job done.
When the light did eventually come on, and minimum proficiency standards were consistently demonstrated under various scenarios, it was indeed the type of gratifying and memorable experience that I mentioned.
Then, there were a small number of experiences when nothing seemed to work and the instructor/check airman found themselves out of both time and ideas with no successful resolution of proficiency in sight.
I had the pleasure of working with hundreds of professional airman in both training and checking scenarios over the years most of whom I still fondly remember.
While I may not remember every positive experience, I do remember the 3 times when nothing seemed to work and the end result was a proficiency check failure.
The unsatisfactory evaluation of a fellow airman, or worse yet, a senior Captain who in days gone by had actually taught the instructor/check airman how to fly, was no easier to make then as it is today.
Check airman find themselves in the untenable position of either upholding required performance standards and making the tough call for additional training or returning the pilot to line operations hoping that the pilot in question just “had a bad day” and would undoubtedly do better if anything bad really happened on the line.
This rationalization may be compounded by highly restricted simulator availability coupled with overly ambitious pilot training schedules which are put in complete disarray if a “thumbs-up” is not given within the prescribed amount of time.
As I listened to the NTSB Sunshine Meeting last week on the B767 fatal hull loss in Trinity Bay, Texas, it appeared that the integrity of the existing flight training and checking process may have let us down. Regardless of what type of air carrier training program is being utilized e.g. AQP, ATQP, EBT, or legacy 14 CFR Part 121 or 135, the last line of defense, the last slice of Dr. Reason’s model, rests upon the shoulders of the check airman.
IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA) Standard FLT 2.1.2 which states in part that “The Operator shall ensure objectivity is maintained in the training and evaluation program, and that instructors, evaluators and line check airmen are permitted to perform assigned activities without inappropriate interference from management and/or external organizations [emphasis added]” has not been inserted into this global safety audit program for decoration.
As we slowly begin the COVID19 restart and recovery process, the time for making these legitimate “tough calls”, regardless of operational, political, logistical, or commercial pressures is now upon us.
We are no longer facing aggressive operational scheduling requirements and flight simulator availability is no longer an oppressive constraint thus presenting a unique opportunity for recalibration.
The position of flight instructor/check airman is no more an easy job today than it was decades earlier; however, it is one of the most critically important and rewarding positions in the entire aviation industry.
Special recognition and thank you to the men and women in the simulators and on the flight decks who make those “tough calls” as needed on a daily basis thereby keeping our industry one of he safest modes of transportation in the world.