Some examples: performance on simulator-based evaluations. The better you deal with simulated emergencies, the higher you score.
This would be a lot tougher to score than one might think. It's not a cookie-cutter process. Every emergency is different and there oftentimes is no single "right" way to handle it, but rather multiple "acceptable" ways to handle it. The ultimate test is if the airplane ends up on the ground safely. That's why they need to be graded on a pass/fail basis, rather than a specific score.
Peer reviews: why not? Why not let pilots evaluate other pilots? If you fear that the system may be corrupted, then designate certain pilots as examiners of other pilots. (Sort of like how pilots get certified in the first place...)
Pilots get certified to begin with by using a pass/fail system and Practical Test Standards.
But anyway, there's also the practical side to this, where an airline with 3000 pilots simply couldn't be constantly evaluating everyone with any level of efficiency. The evaluators could only fly with a given pilot a few times per year. And because everything is so rigid and standardized in the airline world, I'd imagine every pilot would start to look the same after a while.
Then, from a fairness perspective, I wouldn't want my chances of upgrading to all hinge on these few evaluation flights. What if I have an "off" day? I might be a perfectly safe, good, competent pilot, but not fly "optimally" on the day of evaluation and get passed over for upgrade, something that could screw up life for literally a few years.
Customer surveys: should we reward pilots who manage to keep their passengers happy? How about ones who make their passengers feel safe, or well informed?
I don't want to sound harsh, but most airline passengers wouldn't know a good pilot if one walked up and slapped them in the face. They don't have a clue what is safe and what isn't. They judge an airline based on if they fly on time, have a smooth ride, get to their destination, and have a smooth landing.
They get upset if their flight gets cancelled, regardless of the reason. Half the time they think the flight crew is lying about the reason for a problem no matter how truthful the crew has been.
I don't have any contempt for passengers, but they're a fickle bunch and I'd never want my chances of upgrading to depend on them.
I don't buy this -- the pilots I know are not unprofessional enough to let politics get in the way of safety. But I am not a pro like you -- have you seen counterexamples in your experience?
Well, yes and no. The whole concept of CRM (Cockpit Resource Management, or Crew Resource Management) came about as a result of crews not working well together on an interpersonal level and compromising safety as a result (the captain is God, the copilot should sit down and shut up, etc.).
Thankfully, as a result of CRM training, most of those problems have gone away. But people are still people and there are times when two pilots simply don't like each other. Talk to any airline pilot and they can all tell you about a few characters at their airline that they'd prefer not to fly with for one reason or another. It could be a captain who is overly critical of the FO's techniques, the copilot who won't shut up with boring stories, the fact that a pilot used to be employed by a carrier that undercut the current carrier's business, or whatever.
I doubt this kind of arrangement would end in a fiery disaster, but I don't think it would be fair, and it might compromise safety to a smaller degree by just adding unnecessary tension to a cockpit.
Peer review is used successfully in many fields (including my own) -- does aviation have a special property which would make this system break down?
Sort of. I don't know of a good way to explain this. Aviation is a very, very, objective, pragmatic industry. Everything is researched, measured, and quantifiable. It's just the culture of professional flying. Humans are notoriously unpredictable. I think if upgrade ultimately relied on human interaction, it would turn in to a circus. Seniority is very clear, defined, and understandable for everyone.
Would you agree the pilots which can handle the more complicated emergencies without a flaw deserve to be rewarded? Are they not better pilots?
Ehhh...yes and no. A lot of those complicated emergencies are also unrealistic. They have to show the pilot can handle an engine failure, loss of cabin pressure, loss of hydraulic power, shoot an ILS approach to minimums, etc...so they pile it all on at once in order to check the boxes quickly.
And as I said above, emergencies in real life really are more of a pass/fail situation anyway. There are numerous ways to skin a cat.
You have good ideas, but I'm still convinced the seniority system is the only way to do it. There's a reason seniority is used so widely, even at non-union carriers.
Oh yeah, I get more toys to play with too
