# 2014-158 - Pilot, Training Failure, Training Review Board
F&R Date: 2015–02–23
The grievor disputed the decision of the Commandant 3 Canadian Forces Flying School (3 CFFS) to terminate his flight training. He alleged that the training he had taken at 3 CFFS was deficient. More specifically, he felt that his instructor had shown numerous shortcomings in his teaching and that the School had demonstrated a lack of support for Francophone candidates. The grievor pointed out that the teaching material, written tests and flight tests were all in English. Concerning the Progress Review Board (PRB), the grievor complained that it was held in English and that only one of the four members was military.
The Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievance, saying that he agreed with the decision of the Commandant 3 CFFS to terminate the grievor's flight training. The IA was of the view that 3 CFFS had delivered the grievor's training in compliance with the relevant policies. He held the same view concerning the grievor's performance evaluation. The IA did agree with the grievor, however, that having only one military member sitting on the PRB was in contravention of Order 5-035 of the Canadian Air Division. He explained, however, that each member of the PRB, including the military member who had chaired the Board, had accumulated a wealth of experience with the evaluation process. He pointed out that the grievor had received an information session on the workings of the PRB and had signed a form explaining to him the importance of being able to express him-self clearly during the proceedings, of being able to prepare a statement in the language of his choice, and of informing the PRB if the language used was creating problems.
The IA explained that the recommendation to terminate the grievor's training was based on his inability to achieve the required proficiency levels after receiving additional training in dual flying. He was also of the opinion that the fact that the grievor had received his training in English had no bearing on his inability to advance to the next proficiency level.
The Committee had to determine whether the decision to terminate the grievor's flight training was reasonable given the facts and the applicable policies.
Considering the testimony of the instructors and grievor during the PRB, and the comments contained in the course report, the Committee found that the training the grievor had received at 3 CFFS was in line with the established standards and requirements for flight training in the Royal Canadian Air Force. The Committee found that the grievor had failed his flight training because he had been unable to meet the requirements and achieve the established standards.
Finally, the Committee pointed out that he had already acknowledged that pilot training was exempt from the obligations surrounding official languages because of international operational requirements and the need to comply with Defence Administrative Orders and Directives 5039-6. Based on the information on file, the Committee noted that it was impossible to conclude that the language of training had had an impact on his inability to meet the required standard.
In light of the facts and applicable policies, the Committee found that the decision to terminate the grievor's flight training was reasonable.
The Committee therefore recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff deny the grievance.
CDS Decision Summary
CDS Decision Date: 2015–04–16
Case withdrawn at Final Authority level.
- Date modified: