JAA proposal to make ATPL training and testing easier?

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

In Balpas annual report they say they strongly oppose a new method of licensing airline cadets currently proposed by the JAA.

They do this because, in their view, the proposed requirements for training and testing are inadequate.

Does anyone know anything about the proposed JAA changes that Balpa are opposing?


Sounds like the JAA wants to water down the standards and BALPA don't want them to...

Anyone?


WWW

[Groundloop]

Could this be about proposals to have separate forms of training leading to two different types of licences - single pilot commercial and multi-crew commercial?

[Flypuppy]

I remember there were proposals to have a "zero flight time" CPL. This would basically consist of ground exams followed by Level D (?) simulator training for a specific type of transport aircraft. This would mean having a company & type specific instrument rating, sort of squeezing everything into one (Type rating, instument rating and MCC all based on one a/c type and set of company SOPs). There would be no flight training on SEP or MEP aircraft types.

If I remember rightly this proposal was floated a couple of years ago and was being backed by airlines as it would provide them with type specfic pilots "out of the box". I thought those proposals had died a quiet death though, as at the time the various unions (IFALPA and BALPA are the ones that stick in my mind) had vigorously opposed it.

More f :mad: ing goalpost shifting :yuk:

[mad_jock]

Wasn't there some discussion about andailine only license.

From what i remember of the article.

Students would go solo in a SEP and thats about it.

After that they would go straight into a Jet Sim for 300 hours of multi-crew IR training, this would also do for Type rating as well.
Then the OPC at the end would give them CPL multi crew IR and type rating.

They would have maximum 10 PIC under there belts and no pratical VFR nav. And no real RT experence. Or real life cock ups.

All of which apart from the SEP work and ATPL exams could be done with in house TRTO.

The airlines are pushing for this apparently.

Doesn't sound half as much fun as doing it the modular way. I bet the line trainers can't wait to get the first batch online.

MJ

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

300hrs in a jet sim with a sim trainer?!? Thats not going to be cheap!

One wonders what was/is so wrong with how its always been done..?

Cheers

WWW

[BEagle]

Because Nigel Airways, who have heavens knows how many full Flight Simulators up at Branecrank, could clean up quite nicely 'marketing' a 'product' for other airlines - and they wouldn't have to go to the expense of training any real pilots, just simulator drivers. So they are quite keen on this barking idea.

Personally I think that a proper aptitude and selection process, followed by the current VFR CPL is the absolute minimum non-synthetic flight training which should ever be allowed. But perhaps conducting all the IR and multi-engine training in an appropriate jet FNPT and/or FS might have more relevance than the current farce of struggling to keep a Sennapod flying on one labouring engine following a SEFATO in pretend IMC!

But leave it as it is - and make the airlines pay to train their own pilots would be my preference:ok:

[RobNaylor]

So what implications does this have for anyone starting the modular route (as I am next month!!!)? Will there be a "cut-off point" when regular CPL/IR's will be unacceptable for a first officer job? Should I hold on until the situation is clear, or just go for it & hope for the best?

[Artificial Horizon]

This is exactly right, ICAO and JAA have proposed the introduction of a new licence sometime in late 2004 called a 'Multicrew Licence'. Trainees would never have to go solo, training would be conducted intially in SEP for the first 10 hours or so, they would then move straight to MEP aircraft in a multi-crew environment with a heavy simulator syllabus to be issued with a multicrew licence at the normal 200 hour mark. From there they would add a type rating onto the licence and hey presto be employable with an airline. They could do this without ever holding a licence that allows them to fly solo in ANY capacity.

It is being introduced to provide for the projected shortfall in the future of pilots and some brainbox at ICAO doesn't see the need to put people through the traditional route of flying training, in theory it will allow someone to train straight to airline standards at a fraction of the cost that it currently takes, as most of the training can be in ground based sims.

Will be interesting to see how it pans out. Kinda sucks for those of us that struggled for years through all of the hoops that the JAA/CAA kept presenting, but hey thems the breaks.:{

[tubby one]

given that few (if any) airlines can fulfil their requirements through cadet training now, and given that they are not going to radically change their entry standards the introduction of any change to training such as a straight through airline pilot licence is not going to make any great difference to the prospects of anyone now or in the foreseeable future.

note this topic was being addressed quitre recently on one of the D & G Forums.:O :O :O

[M.85]

Question of the day:

Whats the difference between a 200 hours Frozen ATPL Cadet and a zero hour one?
Dont see much difference...turning a knob left or right or up and down doesnt require 200 hours..does it?

Safe tuning:p

M.85

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

It'll end in disaster.

You *have* to have had the experience of making your own go no-go decisions and getting it wrong and scaring yourself and Learning About Flying From That.

You simply have to.

I know from my time teaching airline cadets that they exist totally in a world that is heavily cossetted by the Flying Order Book, their Instructor, the Duty Instructor etc etc. They already have far too little exposure to making finely balanced decisions.

Not everything is in the books, found in a checklist or covered by SOP.

You've got to kick people out there at some point in their training - let them be Skipper and send them with aircraft into the blue yonder.

Lets face it the Military - every countries military - do it that way as their primary focus is on quality not cost. I think this proposal is rooted in cost and us such deserves contempt.

This should not stand.

Cheers

WWW

[Cat IIIC]

I want to cry reading this!! :{ :{ :{

[High Wing Drifter]

On the face of it this makes complete sense for those wishing to take the integrated route and whose wish is only to progress to the airlines. I don't really see why the products of the scheme would be low quality. Any body ever read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintencance"...subject meets object...with this the employer gets no more and no less than they need for junior F/Os.

Essentially, it strikes me that this kind of training would be horrifically expensive for fully self funded students and extremely cost effective to the larger airline (the guys pushing for this?) for sponsored/part-sponsored students. Therefore I would imagine that the products of that training would expect to be only employed by airlines (and the accompanying salaries) or the sponsorer controls their career from that point on (for a few years at least).

In my mind that still leaves a gaping hole for the small jet carrier market, TP market, corporate and other no less essential commercial pilots ops. These 'small' operators are probably not in a position to fund or adequately renumerate junior F/Os who have come through this process. The modular route will still be essential and the larger airlines will still value real experience so long as somebody else has paid for it.

To summarise, this seems to be a modification of the integrated route. Anybody using this route would expect good pay from the off. They will be trading that for fewer career options down the road.

[ecj]

I dare say it would be possible to train someone where simulators formed the majority of the practical training. Fully trained to jump through the JAR hoops.

Without the normal exposure to the conventional flying training whereby the osmosis is allowed to work, and real decisions made when flying solo, the quality of pilot will be much lower at the licence issue stage. Additional training will be necessary to bridge the gap.

Does AIRMANSHIP skills count for nothing?

[High Wing Drifter]

ecj,

I really don't know, but I am hypothesising. I think the license is merely a license to be an F/O and nothing else. Therefore, I guess, the idea is that you learn on the job. Decision making skills and airmanship will be rigorously drilled according to the company's standards, not the Acme School of Flying’s standards.

[BEagle]

And how many airline captains will have sufficient instructional qualifications to deal with these mere machine-minders? How many airlines will accept standards based on lowest possible cost?

Having seen the difference between 'old time' ab-initio RAF pilots who had the benefit of a Jet Provost or Tucano course before ME training and the new breed who have only around 20, yes, that's twenty hours of P1C time (all on fixed-undercarriage light aeroplanes!) before they start their 4-jet OCU, I can certainly vouch that the airline's TRIs will have their work cut out if this hair-brained scheme should ever see the light of day.

The airline bean counters will witter about the 'new' type of pilot who doesn't need the traditional stick-and-rudder skills of his/her forefather, "..after all, an Airbus just flies itself :mad: ", but that's all rubbish. All they want to do is to maximise their profits and avoid having to pay for proper pilot training. Time they woke up to the fact that you can't have an omelette without buying, breaking and cooking the eggs first!

[Flypuppy]

Theoretically it is possible under the current rules to do something similar (assuming I have read and understood the JAR-FCL correctly).

Following a modular route:

PPL
Hour building
ATPL Ground exams
SEP CPL
SEP ICAO recognised IR
Pitch up to a 737/Airbus TRTO. Get type rated on said jet.


With this route you could potentially emerge as a 737/Airbus F/O with a type specific IR and approx 200hours.
Dunno if anyone has tried this route and if it has been succesful.

Maybe I should copyright the idea....

[FlyingForFun]

Personally, I think it's a great idea!

Currently, a lot of GA or smaller transport jobs (instructing, turbo-props, etc) are done by fATPL holders who are hour-building before they move to the airlines. Presumably, anyone following this path would not be qualified to do this type of job. Therefore, there will be far fewer people available to do the work. And so those of us who would prefer this type of work to ferrying 100 people between London and Glasgow 4 times a day might actually be able to get a reasonable salary!

Ok, fair enough - that's a slightly selfish opinion which takes no account of the reality of the situation. It's actually a crap idea. But I am surprised that no one, so far, has asked where the next generation of PPL instructors and turbo-prop pilots is going to come from.....

FFF
---------------

[RVR800]

It was stated a number of years ago by a high ranking training
captain at BA that he could train a youngster to fly a 737 without
some of this GA stuff.

One supposes that there is a drive to reduce cost and £6.00 per minute in a GA twin that has technology that is obsolete in twin engined modern airliners is now just seen as too expensive.

Simulators are getting cheaper but GA flying is getting more and more expensive and the GA stock is now ancient......

The introduction of the multi-crew IR rating has already severed the link between GA and airline-IR work. Airline captains can no longer use their IR to fly a Seneca IFR withot undergoing a separate renewal.

Its also apparant that the skill knowledge and experience required to fly a twin on a public transport flight single crew
is a little different that flying a multi-crew modern glass cockpit airbus multi crew.

Will we all get refunds from the CAA?

See Page 17 re Flypuppy ICAO IR

http://aviation.fh-joanneum.at/JAR/Vortr%E4ge/Woods.pdf

www.halldalemedia.co.uk/eats2003/Woods.ppt

[Funkie]

Okay,

I have a few questions that perhaps those more qualified/experienced than I can answer;

1. I have no desire to go straight to jets, in the long term yes, but not to begin with. Does this proposal mean that my chances of ever flying jets will be diminished by such airline oriented training?

2. How proficient would such a training programme be given the significantly large amount of synthetic training. Will this breed a generation of button pushing pilots that will eventually be aircraft commanders? This could be a very short period of time with the likes of Ryanair, et al.

3. How will this effect those currently engaged in training programmes, modular or integrated, and should those considering starting training within the next year - like me - wait?

4. What is wrong the current system, other than trying to get a job at the end of your training?

I agree that most of the training platforms used by FTO’s are antiquated in comparison to the Glass environment of many modern commercial aircraft. But surely all the principles are the same, it’s just a different front-end to display the information.

If it is the case, that there is a projected shortfall of pilots and this is a proposal to meet the deficit, the safe option must be to extend the retirement age - it’s still 55 for BA is it not? - force low our pilots into an apprenticeship type training where competency and proficiency are paramount before being let loose.

I may be missing the point, but this is how I read the thread.

Your thoughts and comments are always appreciated.

F. :ok:

[VFE]

Agree with the sentiments expressed by WWW and co. but I think some compromise is called for now. As someone who has suffered set backs in training largely beyond my control I can categorically state that losing continuity during training is something which needs to be lessened especially when it's your own pockets taking a battering. Simulators are obviously a good combatant for this.

The experience gained in sending a student off solo for 'xxx' amount of hours is useful but what does one really learn on these hours build packages spent pootling around the sunny skies of Florida for example? I did it and all I learned was how to kill time by looking out for other traffic in the largely populated skies! Okay, slightly dismissive but when I got back to UK the differences hit me like a bolt of lightning so was it worth it? I jumped through the hoop. Big willies.

I am not for or against this new proposal as I can theoretically see both pro's and con's. Instructing for a few years and getting that experience under your belt is obviously going to help a future airline pilot make decisions off their own backs without prodding from a superior. But at the end of the day is it really all that vital? I know guys who've walked into jobs with minimum hours and yes, Captains groan but I've yet (and correct me if I'm wrong) to see an accident directly linked to an FO not having had 'xxxx' hours spent instructing in a SEP before his first RHS position on a transport category aircraft flown by the types of companies discussed on this thread.

force low hour pilots into an apprenticeship type training where competency and proficiency are paramount before being let loose.
Heard this idea mooted before and thought it was quite good. It would definately need integrating with proper hands-on flying which would no doubt have to be conducted in a light piston but it's a step nearer to the realism in flight training which we need........and a step into the future.

Jumpseating, time in a jet/turboprop sim, a day in the ops room, two days in groundschool, two days flight training in MEP's..... that sorta thing. Anything but 150 hours of non taxing pleasure flying, 14 exams in futility, 28 hours of VFR navigation again (the IMC leg now removed from the test as of 01/01/04), and an IR in an aircraft which bares very little resemblance to any aircraft most pilots will ever fly again!

I don't pretend to have the answers but the present system is rather antiquated and irrelevant if you ask me. A little less of the "well I had to do it so must they" mentality would be nice too. We're all guilty of it. I thought straight away that easier ATPL writtens would be bad because I had to do them so...... :}

VFE.

[RVR800]

One consequence of the current system is that the number of
IR issues to PPLs in the EU as a percentage of PPLs is very low
compared to the USA.

Only a handful of IRs - 20 'ish' are issued per year by the CAA!

No wonder so many business people in Europe go FAA IR as stated in 'Flyer'

This is because the IR has been hijacked as a rating that is
seen as a rating for profesional pilots unlike the USA where it is
viewed as a rating to fly GA aircraft under IFR

This JAA stuff is viewed as being too expensive and too time consuming by the airlines and by many in business generally

Why should Europe need a much more costly training system than used in the US for training anyway?

Who wins here apart from the flying schools?

[kebab kid]

Totally agree with VFE and RVR800
GA kit is becoming VERY outdated and starting to bear little relation to airline flying. I've been thinking about this recently also and came to the same conclusion - that a specific airline license ought to be introduced rather than the current mess of a system. It would simplify things so much.

That seems to be a good thing, although you can argue about how much real flying should be done on GA planes and how much on a heavy jet sim. I guess OAT and the rest will be watching this one pretty closely.....

That said, yesterday, i asked my boss for unpaid leave later this year to take the ATPLs and get a CPL.......now what am i supposed to do, if i do that, am i gonna end up with an obsolete license in two years time? I would really like to fly a jet, but thanks to the CAA, airline industry and osama bin laden it sure is an up-hill struggle

Thanks for this thread guys, good info.

[FlyingForFun]

RVR,

You have to be very careful comparing the number of PPL/IRs issued in the UK to the US. Remeber that the majority of UK-based pilots who want to fly in IMC will get an IMC Rating, not an IR.

I don't disagree with the point that you're making, just pointing out that if you really want to compare numbers, then you will need to add the IMC Ratings to the PPL/IRs before you can get anything meaningful from it.

FFF
-------------

[VFE]

Why should Europe need a much more costly training system than used in the US for training anyway?
Good point. However in the US the training is far more flying hours based as opposed to the emphasis on the labourious and oft quite frankly irrelevant written exams here in the UK and sometimes this bill is footed by the student. Some US based newly qualified students get lucky and have the opportunity to work as instructors at the FTO they trained at whilst building up hours in the region of 2000 before approaching the airlines. Some do not even look at the ATP theory exams (much easier than UK anyway) until they're coming up to a command within their airline.

Speak to any US FAA instructor and tell them that guys over here jump into the RHS of a jet with 200 hours and they go into deep shock. I think that says quite alot. However, as I previously pointed out, does VFR instructing in an SEP really bare any resemblance to the kind of work undertaken in an airliner? Decision making experience is improved granted but isn't your time as an FO designed to give you the required experience before you're the one calling the shots from the LHS? BA cadets have graduated from integrated FTO's for years without instructor experience so there's obviously a gaping hole for some balance to be found on this matter.

VFE.

[benhurr]

Personally I think the whole system is a mess. I have a single pilot IR but can't fly single pilot public transport as I dont have 700 hours total time. I can get a job with an airline flying multicrew though, so why have I done all of my training for single pilot ops when I am then not allowed to use it, rather than doing training for multipilot ops which I can?

Although it would be interesting if they brought in this new qualification and then said you couldnt fly RHS in a jet unless you had 700 hours multicrew time...

[redsnail]

This JAR thing does seem crazy. I really don't think much practical thought went into it.
In Oz I know you can with your CPL/IR go and do IFR charters. I would have to check the actual experience required for single pilot airline ops. While you are legally allowed to do the IFR charter, whether any one will insure you is another thing.
I think what people are missing about flying solo is for once, you have to make decisions that will have a direct outcome on the flight. You can't ask your instructor or captain. You can't (often) radio back to base. It's down to you. So with the information you have and the experience you have, you now have to make decisions. If you make the wrong one in a small bugsmasher you tend not to take out too many people (if it's a crash) or more usually it doesn't cost the company too much money.
Being a captain isn't just about flying skills. It's about decision making and responsibility. While you do learn a lot sitting in the RHS or even the sim, you still have the safety net of being able to ask the captain or have another go in the sim.

Besides, flying an aeroplane all by yourself and being paid for it is the best thing in the world. :ok:

[mad_jock]

I really wouldn't want to have jumped straight into a RHS seat on a large jet. Looking back to the amount of fun I have had in puddel jumpers and Instructing.

Instructing isn't just about flying the machine although after 500hrs instructing the handeling side of things starts becoming like driving a car.

Its the people skills, learning how to handle refuelers, scared pax, airport officals, engineering and also the main thing is how to gauge someone elses work load and stress level.

I am sure that what ever they decide for airline licenses the old ones will be just as valid as they are now. You will get some companys who will swear by them. And others who say they want "real" pilots where the FO is a captain in training from the day they sit in the RHS. Exactly like what happens just now with intergrated/ modular methods of training and Instructor / Non Instructor pilots.

If people want the percieved glamour of poking buttons driving around the sky. So be it. Others like myself who get quite a buzz out of being a pilot hand flying the sod, can carry on the way things are done now. I am sure this will wear off in a few years but with any luck it won't.

There will always be a need for pilots to drive twotters and the like. And from the looks of pilots wandering around airports its nearly always the turboprop jocks who have a big smiles on their faces after landing not glum and knackard look of the jet guys.

MJ

[VFE]

Its the people skills, learning how to handle refuelers, scared pax, airport officals, engineering and also the main thing is how to gauge someone elses work load and stress level.
I respectfully acknowledge your points Mad_Jock but in fairness one has to do alot of those things during ones private flying days too. When flying out to the country airfields in the US I had to handle some very difficult people. Hairy, mexican moustached red necks with knuckles dragging behind them would be an apt description. Politeness didn't come into their vocabulary! Was it useful? Hmmm, I guess so but I must admit I've faced just as difficult situations elsewhere in life but at least I now know how to butter these people up to get what I want. Oi, quiet at the back there...... :ooh: http://www.blastwaves.com/motorforum/images/smiles/eusa_naughty.gif

The part I do however feel is lacking is the gauging of others work loads/stress levels which as an instructor you have obviously gained. That is something which the 200 houred chappie missed out on when he/she hopped into the RHS of a large aircraft and I honestly don't know a way of teaching this apart from backseating students on their lessons. Done that quite a few times and must say I've been lucky enough to witness some of the signs of stress and strain on a student like the "yessing" and lack of coherent response to questions put to them. It is useful stuff which the CAA need to recognise if they wish to overhaul the training system.

Not too sure that I've met many in the modular world who get drawn in by the percieved glamour of pushing knobs at FL330 but I'm sure there must be some. The longer you hang around the aviation scene the more you get a sense of realism and know that that lark ain't all it's cracked up to be because as you rightly point out jet guys looking miserable can often be seen!

It all depends on where the student wants to go after their training and with the way jobs are found these days there really can be no firm solution. Unless one got a contract from an airline/taxi and then went off to pay for their training what other way will a student have of knowing the route they're taking is the best one for them?

I know one thing though...... the other day I was lucky enough to unstrap a BE-76 from my arse and walk straight into the cockpit of a B737 for a nosey. One feeling struck me immediately - the complete lack of resemblance to anything I've ever flown before and a big sense of the huge hurdle required to move from an MEP to a jet!

How do they do it???? I know the idea amazed me enough to realise flying something larger than a BE-76 but smaller than a B737 would be a better idea as a first foot on the ladder! Having said that I know of one guy here who stepped into a B747 after leaving integrated training! http://www.blastwaves.com/motorforum/images/smiles/headbangdude.gif

VFE.

[mad_jock]

All very valid points VFE.

But who knows what they are looking for.

MJ

[Fancy Navigator]

Hello,
Nobody really answered Funkie's question, which I will ask again...
IS IT WORTH STARTING CPL/IR TRAINING NOW? Or is better to wait and do this new thing straight away?
Regards,
FN;)

[silverknapper]

seeing as you asked so politely

Would think, having read everything you can lay your hands on it's your decision. Are you in this for a love of flying or just for tea and medals.
The thought of going to an airline with barely any solo time in the air frightens me on two fronts.
1. Where would the fun and enjoyment be?
2. How good am I really going to be flying the line?

What if the captain was incapacitated on your first line flight? Scary enough for those who trained in the air - what of those who never had the experience of flying and making decisions, and dare I say it scaring yourself on the odd occasion.

If you really want it badly, you shouldn't be prepared to wait until the new licence is around. If you have to ask, well..........

[Stan Evil]

This week's Flight has a bit about this. ICAO has had a working party looking at it for some time and expects to set down the requirements and privileges multi-crew licences in 2006 so it's a way off yet. Once ICAO sort it out it's up to individual Authorities (ie EASA [JAA may be gone by then], FAA, CASA etc) to decide if they're going to introduce licences that comply with the ICAO requirements; ICAO already set the template for CPLs etc. It'll take a while for the Authorities to set up what they want and then the schools will need to develop syllabi and get them approved.

The plan, as I understand it, is that the first part of the course will finish with the qualification for a SEP PPL; after that it's all simulator multi-crew (of some kind).

[AppleMacster]

Does anyone have an idea of how much 300hours of simulator currently costs? I'm presuming it's around £400+ per hour..? If this is the case, no self-sponsored is ever going to be able to justify the expense (even if they can afford it)? :rolleyes: It sounds like great news for simulator manufacturers.

AppleMacster

[SFI145]

Can anyone give a reference for the source document for these ICAO/JAA proposals?

[BillieBob]

The proposal at present is for 240 hours of 'flight' training, 60 in SEP aeroplanes and 120 in 'Level A' synthetic training devices and 60 in a Level D device. The course would produce pilots type rated as F/O in one type of multi-pilot aeroplane and a minimum number of hours (yet to be decided) would have to be flown on that type before conversion to any other.

Whilst airlines are clearly for the proposal, any self-sponsored wannabee who embarked on this course would have to be terminally stupid as he/she would end up qualified only on one type of multi-pilot aeroplane and, if no jobs on that type were forthcoming, would not be able to cross-train to a different type and would have no other employment options as a pilot. It is not clear whether the 60 hours of SEP training would include a PPL - the stated intention is to concentrate on "upset training and inverted flight"!!

So, to answer Fancy Navigator's question, it is certainly not worth waiting for the MP licence.