Thank you very much for responding. Did this happen in the last few months? How many people were in your class and what kind of backgrounds seemed to be prevalent?



Can you give any specific examples of something negative you perceived during the training?

No. I wasn't bad mouthing the training department. Their AQP program is new and needs fixing. All the instructors I've talked to agreed as well. They are doing the best they can, but the whole program needs improvement.

Thanks for making this personal. I always had (and have) a positive attitude and was definitely not lazy under a stressful situation. The 300 people that are there did not go through the same program I have. Their AQP program is still new at this point and they are learning as they go.

No I am not the UND guy. I have 10+ years experience at the regionals. Their new training program is actually a lot better for people with zero jet experience than lots of experience. For someone like me that knows what AQP should be like and have experience with it, was precisely what was tripping me up. The "FAA-approved" AQP training programs should be similar from airline to airline but the SCA program is totally out of left field.

It seemed to me people with most problems had the most experience. People with fewest experience had the most to learn but the least to un-learn.

Can you give an example of what you're talking about? How does SCA's AQP differ from how it's supposed to operate? What sort of CRM deviations tripped you up?

Let me reiterate that I didn't "wash out" of this training. I never had anything close to "struggle" or training failure in my 10+ years flying jets.

I think that the APDs (Examiners) still go into AQP training as though it was "old-style" checkride. This is where the discontinuities with "true" AQP come from I believe. Not enough time has passed for Sun Country's APDs to "internalize" AQP philosophy.

Examples:

For every checkride (PV, MV, LOE) the instructors would say that there are "no new maneuvers" that haven't been seen before in training that are going to be introduced on the checkride. False. Every checkride introduced a never-before-seen maneuver. They like "flap failure / assymetry" on go around to be introduced on the checkride. Also, Second-segment-climb engine failure was also introduced on my checkride.

Whenever you make a mistake (nothing too bad) easily caught by the other guy, the APD would tap the other guy on the shoulder and shush him. At that point you are single pilot, no CRM. I had "heading select" mode that didn't take (I didn't press the button hard enough) that was easily caught by the other guy "tapped out" by the APD and that was one of my "maneuver failures"

One of the LOE scenarios had the ILS out NOTAM for the wrong runway, and weather forecast for the whole period was MAX 300 3/4 with no rain that pretty much lead to ILS approach ONLY for the runway that was in use. They give you an ATIS card as though from the printer. Oh and the FO reading light on the sim was out. SURPRISE! Weather was 800/2. Also, the sim brakes at this time, for the second time on the checkride!
Well ok, good. However I didn't notice that on the bottom on the card they were using RNAV approach and there was rain w/braking action reports. Unforecast, Un-NOTAMd. If I didn't read the paperwork I would be good, but since like a good pilot I read the paperwork, I expected no rain and ILS to mins.
Oh, and of course the ILS was identified by the aircraft and the needles matched.
Since the SIM broke, the ride stopped at that point.

Heard there are maneuver fails for not setting ILS inbound courses for RNAV approach, even though it's not a requirement. "must follow procedure" was the answer. Also the other guy was "tapped out" of that one.

Other things like that. Nothing major in it of itself but in combination reminds me more of a "full-of-tricks" PC rather than more realistic scenario-based AQP training.

Besides the sim breaking, any and all of those scenarios seem realistic to me. Even the copilot “tapped out”.

I’ve never seen a pilot here not set the ILS inbound course even while doing an RNAV approach. Why not use your resources to back yourself up? Especially on a check ride?

You’re making it sound like an AQP checkride should be a free automatic pass. If that was the case, our airline would be extremely unsafe.

Good lord. This was painful to read. You better not come over to my shop.....you wouldn't last a day.

Sorry to hear about your training experience at SY. I’ve heard the switch to AQP has been rough, but having the majority of a class fail one item is ridiculous. Sounds like they need to calibrate the Check Airmain and instructors. Are they hiring pilots with no turbine time?

You just described a few non-retrainable events. Sounds like the check airman was doing a good job failing you.

It's my understanding that type-rating check rides are jeopardy events. They are not 'train to proficiency' events.

I wasn't there, but a type rating ride is a serious event and I'm not sure, based on what's described, that it didn't have the appropriate outcome.

Appreciate the write up. I'm going to give you some constructive criticism. The business with the ILS/RNAV and unforecast weather has me confused. If I'm reading you right, you assumed based on forecasts that you'd be flying a particular approach to a particular runway and the weather would be a particular way. When you got there and pulled the ATIS, it was something different. The forecast didn't play out exactly and they were running the RNAV instead of the ILS you expected. Ok? So you pivot and fly RNAV if you're legal to, or you divert. To be honest, this aligns pretty well with the real world. What it doesn't sound like is your "typical" checkride scenario where they brief you soup-to-nuts on how the day will go and then you go about checking off the boxes. I guess you can call it a curveball, but it sounds to me like a perfectly realistic one. And not a very big deal if you can get past deviating from the checkride profile expectations. The tapping out thing is difficult. In general, that sounds like BS to me. You're a crew, fly as a crew. However, I have been in situations where the right seater was fireman carrying the left seater through the ride, and the examiner finally has to say "bang you're dead" to accurately evaluate the other guy's performance. It's a tough balancing act for everyone.

Here's another thing I picked up on from your posts. You seem very adamant to emphasize that you have never busted anything ever. You hold your clean training history in high regard, which is very understandable. But it almost sounds like a chip on your shoulder that is ultimately harming you. Case in point, you were so insulted over not performing well during training that it lead you to badmouth the program openly enough that you got fired. And now here you are on a public forum, continuing to disparage the SY training department because they withheld a gold star from you, mrgoodguy, who has never had any training difficulties ever! I'm being dramatic of course, but that is how it comes across. So reflect on that a little as you move forward.

You sound like a smart cat. I've had my share of bad examiners too and don't find it hard to believe. I also don't subscribe to the endless self-flagellation of a bad checkride. Most times the applicant screws up, but sometimes you get a pinhead examiner who got a speeding ticket that morning and for whatever reason, they set out to share their misery with you. Of course you must never suggest that in an interview, but everyone knows the truth. I sincerely mean this to be constructive. Be careful not to trip over your own ego.