# 2013-031 Careers, Cease-Training, Pilot, Progress Review Board (PRB)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2013–07–31

The grievor, a student Pilot in the Primary Pilot Training Phase I Course, was rated unsatisfactory during his Clear Hood (CH) 15 mission. He was also assessed as unsatisfactory in his subsequent CH 15 extra dual flight. An independent review determined that the grievor had failed an extra dual mission and therefore met the course failure criteria. As a result, a Progress Review Board (PRB) was convened and the grievor's training was ceased because he could not achieve and maintain the required standard of performance within the allotted training time.

The grievor argued that the PRB did not consider several issues that would have warranted a continuation of his training, including student/instructor breakdown in communication, inadequate instructional technique, incomplete student progress cards, a missed solo flight and an invalid Qualification Standard. The grievor sought reinstatement as redress.

The Initial Authority (IA) considered the grievor's arguments and concluded that the decision to cease the grievor's training was justified.

The Committee found no evidence of a gap in communication between the grievor and his instructors during the course, noting that the grievor was rated below standard for the same shortcoming on four separate missions by three different instructors. The Committee agreed with the IA that the instructional technique used with the grievor was appropriate and adequate. The Committee also found that the missed solo flight was administered in accordance with the Training Plan and that any small delays in completing the student progress cards did not have a negative impact on the grievor's performance.

Finally, the Committee observed that the grievor was unable to maintain his prior skills while mastering new ones in accordance with the Training Plan. The Committee found the decision to cease the grievor's training to be reasonable and in accordance with policy, based on the grievor's failure of his CH 15 extra dual mission and his inability to achieve and maintain the required standard of performance within the allotted training time.

As a result, the Committee recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–10–30

The FA agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied.