Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. Username Protected
    Frequent Poster

    Posts
    134 Posts
    Thanked 73 times
    Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Nov 2020
       #1  

    Exclamation CAE no longer doing 61.58 progressive checks

    Just a heads-up that CAE is apparently no longer offering the progressive-check option for recurrents. You get two sim sessions (on a 4-day) - a practice check ride and then the full check ride (proficiency check). A friend who went recently was completely surprised by this as he was expecting the progressive-check experience, and I noticed my schedule for next week had also been changed to reflect this. I asked CAE about this and got this reply:
    Due to a recent change in gui(Username Protected)ce from the FAA and the CAE Regulatory Department, ECTS has discontinued
    offering “progressive checks” during recurrent training.

    What does this mean for your training? Instead of doing an oral exam, followed
    by a cold weather (S15) and hot weather (S16) sim session, you will receive a training
    sim session (S7) to practice all the maneuvers required on the 61.58 proficiency check.
    On the last day, you will be scheduled for an oral exam followed by the proficiency check (S8).

    Please be advised that a 61.58 proficiency check is different than a type rating test. In
    the proficiency check, just as in the two-session “progressive check”, you can be re-trained
    and re-checked on two maneuvers and still pass the check.
    I have no idea what the "change in gui(Username Protected)ce" from the FAA they are referring to is, and I am somewhat cynical that this may be due to a shortage of FAA examiners since the stand-alone check format only requires an examiner for one sim session rather than two.
  2. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    64 Posts
    Thanked 32 times
    Phenom Pro Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined May 2021
    #2  
    This just surprised me on my 4-day recurrent a few days ago. I've enjoyed the progressive check with cold and hot weather days, things I like to get a refresher on. For now if you want that, you basically need to do a 5-day recurrent.

    The way it was explained to me, the FAA expects training on a maneuver before you are "checked" on it. That really wasn't possible with the S15/S16 progressive. So for now it's just an S7/S8 until they can figure out something better.

    I'll do a 5-day recurrent next time around.
  3. Username Protected
    Star Contributor

    Posts
    745 Posts
    Thanked 507 times
    Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2020
    #3  
    Congressman Jay Obernolte (Phenom 300 owner) raised this issue during the CAE session at EEOC '23, and CAE didn't have much information in response other than what (Username Protected) provided above. FlightSafety noted that they were still doing progressive checks. Jay offered to poke the FAA if needed.
  4. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    8 Posts
    Thanked 1 time
    Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2020
    #4  
    So what is included in a one session "proficiency check" that is not in the hot and cold day sessions?
  5. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    31 Posts
    Thanked 11 times
    Phenom Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2020
    #5  
    It’s true. Did it in March.

    Just my opinion but it’s really not a big deal. However, it’s taken the training out of our annual recurrent training. It’s all about the “checkride” and all that entails. I’d really like to see a return to some training, actual learning and experiencing some things that crews have actually seen in the field. I spoke to (Username Protected) about it and he assured me they were working on it but for now, it is what it is.
  6. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    5 Posts
    Thanked 13 times
    Phenom Pro Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Mar 2021
    #6  
    I experienced the same in May 2022 at CAE. I asked for a 5 day recurrent, wanting to get the most I could from a product I was personally paying for. And the training received really was quite good overall.

    However, the atmosphere was definitely more that of an initial with concerned about the test, about how you could fail the test, about how you better have every comma correct on limitations on the oral on the test etc. Definitely not what I expected or wanted.

    I usually really enjoy training, and being on both sides of the training actions, it is usually great to be the one receiving it. When a student is relaxed, he is far more able to take in good new data and improved techniques that recurrent training should provide.

    The talk from most of the instructors centered on how you can do this or that to flunk your test.

    When he is focused on a test, he is really worried about just passing versus really gaining. Sorry if I stated that inelegantly, but progressive checks on already competent pilots improves safety by allowing these pilots to gain and improve. Test atmosphere has these same pilots focused on just “passing a test.”

    CAE should do progressive checking if at all possible.
  7. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    8 Posts
    Thanked 1 time
    Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2020
    #7  
    I can tell you that when we had the FCE 1 fail, my training in the sim for no flaps landings proved invaluable. I'm assuming they still do those?
  8. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    38 Posts
    Thanked 19 times
    Phenom 100 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Jan 2022
    #8  
    I had a similar issue to this when I went to CAE for my first recurrent, and first time training with them. I was signed up for the progressive and on the first morning of class they pulled me into the "principals office" to let me know that I had little to no chance of passing a progressive (as someone who hadn't done sim time) and that they wanted me to stay for an extra day, which would be another x-thousand dollars. (I don't remember exact amount)

    I kindly informed them that I was very proficient and was going home the night before my wedding anniversary, so extending was not an option, and I declined. Of course, getting through the progressive wasn't a problem. My in airplane training from (Username Protected) and Steve with Shepherd was awesome.

    I think there's a couple factors at play here. 1. A shortage of FAA examiners. In a progressive the examiner is with you for 4 days. For a regular format an instructor can teach you and the examiner is only with you for the check ride. I think this is the biggest reason. But I can't help but feel like they also want to bill that 5th day....
  9. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    1 Posts
    Thanked 0 times
    Phenom Instructor/Mentor
    Join Date
    Joined May 2021
    #9  
    Hi (Username Protected),

    I completed the training under the new format earlier this month and they still included the no flap scenario and the circle. Although the circle is currently done in Anchorage until they can get Kennedy approved.
  10. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    13 Posts
    Thanked 6 times
    Phenom Pro Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2021
    #10  
    (Username Protected), the last time I asked they said the price for the 4-day and 5-day are the same.
    Quote Originally Posted by (Username Protected) View Post
    I had a similar issue to this when I went to CAE for my first recurrent, and first time training with them. I was signed up for the progressive and on the first morning of class they pulled me into the "principals office" to let me know that I had little to no chance of passing a progressive (as someone who hadn't done sim time) and that they wanted me to stay for an extra day, which would be another x-thousand dollars. (I don't remember exact amount)

    I kindly informed them that I was very proficient and was going home the night before my wedding anniversary, so extending was not an option, and I declined. Of course, getting through the progressive wasn't a problem. My in airplane training from (Username Protected) and Steve with Shepherd was awesome.

    I think there's a couple factors at play here. 1. A shortage of FAA examiners. In a progressive the examiner is with you for 4 days. For a regular format an instructor can teach you and the examiner is only with you for the check ride. I think this is the biggest reason. But I can't help but feel like they also want to bill that 5th day....
  11. Username Protected
    Frequent Poster

    Posts
    134 Posts
    Thanked 73 times
    Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Nov 2020
       #11  
    That's interesting - I haven't done the progressive before, but my assumption was that they would have you practice a maneuver (and then if successful), do it again to test the maneuver. Was that not how it was done? Were they just passing you on the first go if your practice was OK?
    If so, I can see how the FAA would be upset at that - their gui(Username Protected)ce (which is NOT new) is that you have to clearly separate practice/training maneuvers from "check" maneuvers, which means you have to do everything at least 2X.

    That said, I don't know why CAE wouldn't have time to do it properly - the progressive always had 2 full SIM sessions, so you should have time between the two to do all maneuvers at least 2X (practice and check). The stand-alone format has 2 SIM sessions and you do all of them in each session, the only difference being that the first session is all practice and the second is all check.

    It could be that their attempt to shoe-horn the progressive check into their existing COLD/HOT SIM agenda didn't leave time for everything...

    Quote Originally Posted by (Username Protected) View Post
    This just surprised me on my 4-day recurrent a few days ago. I've enjoyed the progressive check with cold and hot weather days, things I like to get a refresher on. For now if you want that, you basically need to do a 5-day recurrent.

    The way it was explained to me, the FAA expects training on a maneuver before you are "checked" on it. That really wasn't possible with the S15/S16 progressive. So for now it's just an S7/S8 until they can figure out something better.

    I'll do a 5-day recurrent next time around.
  12. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    6 Posts
    Thanked 4 times
    Phenom Instructor/Mentor
    Join Date
    Joined Jan 2022
    #12  

    Progressive checking authority has been restored

    Update -

    By late July CAE had resolved their mixup with their new FAA inspector and is back in the progressive checking world again. It was always a CAE ECTS + FAA problem not seen in any other 142 program. But they are so short on Phenom TCEs that they are still actively pushing people towards a train+check experience due to lack of qualified human resources to give you an examiner both days.

    My advice is just be firm and clear with what you are willing to engage CAE for and you can have the progressive check if you demand it.

    The alternative current promoted by CAE, one day of training followed by a checkride the next day, is a huge waste of the sim. All the enrichment abnormals are removed from that program as they only can fit mock checkride and checkride in the four day course. For $15,000 to get 4 hours of sim time, I expect more than the simulated version of an in aircraft checkride.

    Bot(Username Protected) line, be clear and firm, in email (writing) with (Username Protected), (Username Protected) and (Username Protected)my. Progressive check is the only training/checking anyone should do in a sim. 5 day recurrent with LOFT on Day 1 if you need some extra training before the progressive check.

    But don't pay CAE money for anything but a progressive check is my strong recommend.

    Marc Parent has got to be so frustrated to see the ECTS program grind down to such a bad state. Even I am frustrated as a cus(Username Protected)er. We are down to less than 1000 hours on type among the entire instructor corps combined there.
  13. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    53 Posts
    Thanked 33 times
    Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2020
    #13  
    Neel Kashkari the MN Fed governor has a great line that might apply here “ don’t tell me you can’t find labor, have you tried to pay more for the labor”? At 15k per training and classes with 15 people, I am sure CAE can afford qualified instructors.
  14. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    70 Posts
    Thanked 25 times
    Phenom Instructor/Mentor
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2020
    #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by (Username Protected) View Post
    Neel Kashkari the MN Fed governor has a great line that might apply here “ don’t tell me you can’t find labor, have you tried to pay more for the labor”? At 15k per training and classes with 15 people, I am sure CAE can afford qualified instructors.
    (Username Protected) - I don't know if ECTS imposes any hurdles, but I can report that CAE has upped instructor pay (a significant amount vs FSI). I'm now on the Global 6000 Vision program in NJ. It is hard finding qualified applicants, even with the pay increase. (And they've sweetened the pot on the benefits side as well.) That said, it takes a long time to spin up a TCE -- 12 months as an instructor before you can move to TCE. And it takes a while to train to be an instructor.
    I agree with what (Username Protected) said -- cus(Username Protected)ers need to make sure your voices are heard!
    (Username Protected)
    https://www.(Username Protected)aviation.com
  15. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    38 Posts
    Thanked 20 times
    Praetor/Legacy Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Nov 2020
    #15  
    I’m currently at FSI across the field from CAE here in Dallas doing my Praetor recurrent. Their EMB-550 program is at near meltdown due to lack of TCEs, and they have been forced almost completely to the train/check model for recurrents.

    Yes more money might help, but there is a vast sucking sound from the airlines and fractional / charter operators. And the airlines have all raised pay too. Instructors with medicals have told me that they get called literally day by airlines looking to poach talking. This is likely to be a structural problem for years.

    I am rather amused by comments that we should “demand” that CAE provide progressive checks.

    The FAA is going to need to do something about this. The majority of non-TCE instructors I’ve worked with at CAE and FSI are eminently qualified to become TCEs and the FAA could provide some sort of emergency relief to allow 142s to fast track their best into TCE positions. I think the risk to safety would be vanishingly small.
  16. Username Protected
    Frequent Poster

    Posts
    75 Posts
    Thanked 56 times
    Aircraft Broker
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2020
    #16  
    One of NBAAs most pressing priorities is working on getting a permanent FAA Administrator along with securing FAA Reauthorization. The FAA was decimated during the COVID period and they are finally getting replacements for all of the vacancies but they still need a leader. If you're curious, the House bill (which NBAA supports) and the Senate bill for reauth are significantly different even though business aviation has strong bipartisan support. Next time your local politician comes round for a contribution please emphasize the importance of the FAA and the inclusion of policies that support small flight departments.

Posting Permissions