SLF Can you give me your opinion Please

[Global Warrior]

Hi

There are threads running in other forums about this but im not sure how much of it is read by SLF so i just wanted to hear the feelings of SLF.

Certain Airlines are allowing 250 Hour Pilots who have bought a Type Rating, for example on an Airbus, to pay the airline in return for training them to obtain around 200 hours on type. They are occupying the Co-Pilots seat, flying the aircraft on revenue flights and are then dumped on the dole at the end of their training because they are replaced by another pay to fly candidate. Meanwhile, there are 5,000 hour pilots on the dole who cant get a job.

250 hours is about the absolute minimum required to get a Licence.

Is this something that concerns you on any level?

Regards

GW

[SeenItAll]

I will bite.

Yes, this does concern me for two reasons. The first is that the FO's experience is very limited. I would definitely prefer higher minimums for the job. The second is that the airline employer is now conflicted. Instead of the SLF being their sole client to whom they owe a duty of safe transport, part of the airline's revenue is coming from a FO paying for his seat. Assuring this secondary revenue source is in conflict with the interest of the SLF. That is, the airline may not be willing to exercise adequate quality control (as desired by the SLF) over whether the FO should be permitted to fly because doing so may reduce the airline's revenue.

What is the solution? Greater transparency. Perhaps airlines should be required to file public data on both their minimum standards for crew, as well as statistics comparing their crew's actual credentials to these minimum standards. For example, we minimally require 500 total hours and 50 hours on type to be a FO, 2000 total hours and 500 hours on type to be a captain; our FO's actually average 1500/400 and our captains 3500/2000.

[MPN11]

Bite 2 ... why do I fly BA?

Enough said? :cool:

[TSR2]

Is this something that concerns you on any level?

Not at all ..... remember every pilot has to start somewhere ..... but .... providing that the low-hour trainee is fully supervised by a suitably qualified third member of the flight crew.

If this is not the case, then too bloody true it is of concern.

Firstly, it is without doubt putting additional pressures on the Captain particularly if he/she does not have a natural ability as a trainer.

Secondly, on the grounds of safety. A low-hour trainee implies a very real lack of experience which, in the event of incapacitation of the Captain, could jeopardise the safety of the flight.

Thirdly, how the hell has it got to this sorry state. Are modern airliners that easy to fly that they only really need one pilot .... Well that is the way it seems to be heading. How on earth can anyone see a career as a pilot with a system like this, and what state will the industry be in when all the current Captains reach retirement.

[Global Warrior]

Thanks so far........ keep going people, would really like to hear your opinion

[Bigmouth]

Sure, everybody is concerned. Until they realize they have to fork over an extra £20 for a ticket on a real airline with a real F.O., and - poof - the concern is gone.

[bmi goldenboy]

GW - What exactly would you like an opinion on? Are you saying that that 250 hour licensed pilots are unsafe? How many accidents or even near misses have been attributed to pilots granted licenses on the 250 hour basis? It would appear from your question that you feel the practise is unsafe. Some real facts would be helpful to form an opinion.

[Global Warrior]

i cant load the question. I have asked it. Within the context of the original question, my input cannot be any more than the question i have asked. Im just interested to hear from passengers as to what they they think about people paying to fly airliners as opposed to be being paid to fly them.

Regards

GW

[davidjohnson6]

When seated somewhere in row 23, I have very little information indeed as to whether the people in the white shirts up front know what each button does, or what all the lights mean - partly because access to those 2 people while they are working is very limited. The nearest I get is listening to the tone of an intercom and hoping the person speaking sounds like they've done this before. I've experienced cases where one of the cabin crew has been little more than a spotty teenager looking awkward fumbling their way through the safety demo - had there been a serious safety issue, I do not think that individual would have been able to contribute much.

By the time I've made an assesment of the individuals, it's usually far too late to do anything about it. Asking to get off once the doors are closed is usually met with threats backed up by the Air Navigation Order to do whatever the crew tell me, even if they tell me to bark like a dog. Being fined thousands of pounds by an airport for trespass on the ramp because I thought a pilot didn't know what he was doing is not a great choice.

The only possible access I have to the pilots is on arrival (I exclude the case of when one nips out to the toilet mid-flight) - by which time any concerns about a specific individual are of near zero relevance - they're departing in 25 mins to fly somewhere else, while I've only just arrived and will almost certainly fly next time with a diferent set of people. I am obliged to delegate this assessment of individual pilots or airline policy to the formal regulator of flying in the UK, namely the CAA or its counterparts elsewhere in the world. Word of mouth about an airline from one person in the pub or similiar is simply unreliable.

I do know that pilots generally have a strong desire not to die during flight or cause any fatalities (I suspect this is bad for one's career), and that an airline doesn't like all the additional costs that are incurred when fatal accidents occur. Both these facts should motivate airline policy and pilots to be sensible most of the time. That said, people sometimes will pretend they know what to do when they don't, if only to maintain their pride. I am also reassured by some corners of the press loving to run an aviation safety story, even if trivial, superficial and factually incorrect - keeps airlines on their toes

I am also aware that there seems to be a tendency within the industry to close ranks when something happens and try to resolve problems without too much getting out to the press - it took a huge public argument before the EU agreed to publish an "airlines banned from the EU" list. I don't expect any kind of transparency in the next few years along the lines of forcing airlines to formally disclose any kind of meaningful policy beyond a trivial (and not always correct) 'safety is our number 1 priority'

[Mr Optimistic]

Well, I don't 'vet' the crew on boarding! Like the rest of the operation I take things on trust generally. I always assumed that the reason for having two crew was to balance workload and provide backup in the event of an issue. The move to two man flight decks must also have been backed by analysis on sufficiency. However, I would think all these arguments assume a reasonable balance in experience/capability between the two seats. So persistent use of low hours FO's must weaken one link in the safety chain.

I have seen the petition on another thread. If there are indeed experience people out of work, what motivates the pay to fly candidates as the economics wouldn't seem promising ?

The general public (including me) are easily unsettled by any publicity on flight safety as we would generally prefer not to think about it. Not sure how you could go about promulgating this issue without risking a shouting match. Why isn't the union doing something (a. to protect its member's interests, b. for safety ) ? Even the RMT is using 'safety' as a red flag wrt railway maintenance which is a much less emotive issue.

[Mariner9]

Personally, I rely upon the Aviation Regulatory Authority of the country of register of the aircraft and airline to ensure than safe minimum standards apply.

Therefore, if I trust that regulatory authority, I trust the airline. The flight crew's remuneration (or lack of) is not in my view relevant to safety (though of course most would sympathise with their plight in the example quoted on a human level)

I'm sure however, that the Media would be only too delighted to publish a suitably inaccurate scare story.

[Diver_Dave]

Are you asking about
a) Pay to fly
or
b) Low hours pilots?

The BA and Britannia cadet schemes did this in the past
Lufthansa has the Bremen flight school, FlyBe use a UK FTO.
I'm sure there are more...

The training syllabus is set for the ATPL course, I personally can't
see the difference between P2F and a ATPL Cadet starting.

Now, the ethical issue of offering x hrs (and taking money for it)
then on to the next low hours qualified pilot, may be dubious. However
the current economic climate is what it is and it's really Caveat Emptor
for anyone entering the profession.

So to answer your question, no I'm not worried given that the syllabus
is the same and it's not a shortcut to the cockpit. Reported incident rates
due to low hours pilots are not statistically variant. However, the ethical /
moral position is down to the individual.*

Personally I'd be more concerned by widespread adoption of the Multi crew
certification (the name eludes me at the moment), where the actual
training is cut down.

Regards

DaveA


* Accidents / incidents statistically are more likely to happen sometime after finishing training.
From teaching various types of diving I know that accidents tend to
happen at th 60-90 dive mark for open water and then for qualified Cave divers at the 40-50 mark.
I believe there is a similar hours zone for PPL holders, although I can't find a cite

[PAXboy]

Global Warriori cant load the question. I have asked it. Within the context of the original question, my input cannot be any more than the question i have asked. Im just interested to hear from passengers as to what they they think about people paying to fly airliners as opposed to be being paid to fly them.
Regards
GWWhy can't you load the question?
For whom are you asking the question?
Are you a journalist?
Are you in the airline industry?

Your PPRuNe public profile gives no detail and you have 'low hours' here, so given that these are anonymous forums, your question seems to be loaded ... I ask not in an aggressive manner and will cheerfully give my answer - but I am interested in your motivation.

[Global Warrior]

Hi Paxboy

Will update my profile.

You have PM

Regards

GW

[PAXboy]

Thanks GW for that update and the PM (replied). Of course, you might be bluffing (Sry could not resist ;)) but here is my reply:

Where I am aware of low hours crew that are paying their way - I do not travel on that carrier. I think that it's a dangerous path and, as I have said in other threads, the whole airline biz has reached a comfortable plateau of safety - so that the next move can only be down.

It is human nature to improve things and then get complacent, EVERY company and govt and most individuals get to this point. The saftey record will go down in any number of ways but they ALL lead back to money.
Scrimping on training
Cutting back on flight crew numbers
Making all crew work longer hours
Have computers take control of too much planning and not enough seat-of-the-pants
Ignore how much weight is carried on and put in the overheads that will rain down on pax
Assume that, since it went right the last 1000 times, it will go right this time (The Normalization of Deviance, I think it is called, just remember the Space Shuttle)
Allow drunk pax on board, keep folks cooped up/strapped in so that tempers flare
The list is endlessBut, as another said, money is all and pax - even if given the data - will not respond in enough numbers. As long as their ticket on this trip was cheap and they got there - then it's OK. It isn't.

I could add to the thread about the benefits of being part of the forum - that I now know more about carriers that have poor practice.

[Final 3 Greens]

GW

My tuppence.

Seems to me that there are two sides to the argument (a) you need two highly trained and experienced pilots, vs (b) modern aircraft are easier to fly and therefore you only really need one.

I am only a PPL, so I cannot really make a judgement on this statement, due to lack of experience.

However, looking at a leading proponent of the (b) argument and taking into account his company's 'contribution' to the sector, I instinctively feel that (a) is the way I wish to travel.

Therefore, I tend to fly legacy carriers and pay more for my tickets.

Unfortunately, the majority of pax are fare whores, which is how we got to where we got to where we are.

[Ancient Observer]

As a customer - and the term SLF is just an indicator of the inward-looking nature of Aviation - I have never been given the opportunity to interview the folk in the pointy end to see whether or not they are up to the job of transporting me and mine.

In the UK I'm told that some schoolkids in some schools can be on the interview panel when teachers are appointed. Wierd, Huh!

So given that I can't do the interviewing, and that the other customers can't either, there must be some sort of underlying trust that says that "the system" makes sure that the pilots are up to the job.
Most pilots are not suicidal, and have the same interest in safety that I have - so I gues that's a good starting point. (Remember the old lady who took a firm grip on the dentists privates, and said "We aren't going to hurt each other, are we?)
Assuming a lack of suicidal drive by the pilots, and an airline that understands the costs of an accident, then the next part of the "system" must be the Inspectors. The FOIs are (in most countries) experienced pilots.
I guess that if they say it is OK to carry on as we are, then it must be OK.

If lots of pilots think that this is not OK - and that their concerns are about safety, not money, then they ought to lobby DfT/CAA/FAA et al to get the Standards and the System changed.

[DIA74]

I have been in airlines and travel most of my life. Personally, I ALWAYS put confidence in a carrier ahead of the ticket price. The industry has a great safety record, and modern aircraft are very reliable, but this could lead to complacency. Yes, you can get away with pay-to-fly juniors for a long time, but what happens when there is a real challenge to their (limited) skills? On T/O and approach, where most accidents occur, there is little time to identify a problem and correct it. Two experienced pilots offers me more hope than a pay-to-fly junior and a highly stressed Captain trying to do both their jobs. The old adage "two heads are better than one" translates into two sets of experience are more likely to find the answer.

Most people see flying as so routine they do not even think about safety issues. They just look at the price. What future cuts will be made by the cheapest carrier to stay cheapest? I only hope it will not take something serious to wake people up to the dangers of this slippery slope.

[PAXboy]

Here's an interesting item from the US, not about the aviation biz - but I suggest entirely germane to the problem.

In a coal mine, 25 men have just died. There were plenty of regulations but:-

The operator behind the Sago mine had been widely criticised after it became known the company had been cited for more than 200 safety violations during the 12 months prior to the accident.

So the regulator KNEW about the violations but did not shut them down? It's great to have regulators who know about the violations and write memos - but if they do not have the controls or, possibly, the b@lls to shut the operation down? People die. What confidence do we have that the various aviation authorities have the powers and WILL act?

BBC News - US mine safety under the spotlight (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8606349.stm)

[kenhughes]

It concerns me that these pilots have to pay to get their type-rating.

It concerns me that there are so many experienced pilots on the furlough list, or who have left the industry altogether.

It concerns me that there are so many flight-schools taking money from students and churning -out pilots in to an already saturated marketplace - but then, the same can be said of universities (mostly the ex-Poly's) who are doing the exact same thing in all other fields.

It does not concern me that a low-time First Officer may be sat in the right-hand seat of an aircraft I may be travelling in. Why not?

The FO has proven him or herself to be proficient in the eyes of the local civil aviation authority at many levels - PPL, IFR, Multi-Engine, Commercial and fATPL. You can't buy these certificates, you can only buy the training that will enable you to pass the examinations.

He or she has proven to the airline, in the pre-hire simulator check ride, that they are capable of flying the aircraft to company SOPs.

I don't even think about the experience of either pilot when I board an aircraft.

(NOTE: I am not, and never have been, a pilot, though I do work in the aviation industry)

[Capot]

SLF Can you give me your opinion Please

Here's an opinion from a seat in the back of the aircraft, shaped by 40 years in the airline industry, much of it in technical as opposed to commercial areas, and now involved in training of the next generation of airline staff.

When it all goes pear-shaped on a rainy night, with an incapacitated Captain in the left-hand seat, the crosswind gusting to 25knots, and an engine that just died on the approach I want a reasonably experienced pilot in control, please, not a young technician with fewer hours than I have who knows how to manage the systems - when they work - but has rarely actually handled, ie flown the aircraft other than in a simulator.

I don't think it makes any difference if he is paying or being paid. It's his lack of experience that frightens me.

The last real airline that I worked for required a minimum of 1,500 hours for a first officer to be rostered as p2 in a 2-crew flight deck. Fewer than that, and there would be a competent pilot aboard, just in case.

This frequently happened, as it was recognised that the FO's needed to gain the experience. But not at the expense of passenger safety.

Expense is the key word, isn't it? So I will say it out loud, no equivocation, sorry about the hurt feelings of young pilots who know it all. A 250-hour pilot is simply not trained, experienced or competent enough to handle the aircraft on his/her own when problems No. 2 and No. 3 add to the stress caused by a Captain's incapacity. And trying to justify having him/here there to meet the bean-counters expectations should be a criminal offence. Step forward the ever-complaisant CAA to do their job. Ah, sorry, it's tea and blind-eye time, again.

It isn't good enough to hope like hell that the combination of a Captain's incapacity and a number of other major difficulties won't ever happen when you've got an inexperienced trainee pilot in the RHS. Because it will because it can.

[lowcostdolly]

Global Warrior you have raised an excellent question to the SLF here and I have just read the most recent response by Capot which I wholeheartedly agree with....both when flying as CC and as SLF.

Funny thing is when I expressed much the same opinion as CC on a Pilot thread I got flamed by one of your colleagues for daring to have it. I even got accused of poor CRM for expressing an opinion on what you as a Pilot are now asking on an anonymous forum.

It would seem that within aviation we do not want to admit there could be a problem with inexperience and it is growing all the time.

When you have canvassed SLF opinion what are you going to do with these results?

IMHO inexperienced Pilots are here to stay if the Loco's are left to their own devices. An inexperienced FO is the next inexperienced Captain and so it goes on.....

I fly with low hours Pilots on many occasions. All our professional (some appear nervous at first) but all can fly a plane under normal circumstances. It's the abnormal that bothers me...in particular what happens if the Captain is incapacitated. At my lot these guys are generally put with Captains of experience due to their lack. I have never seen them put to the test and hope I never will.

On the BA 777 incident at LHR the FO was the Pilot flying. Under the Captains guidance the two of them saved countless lives in a few seconds of experienced airmanship. I wonder if we would have had the same positive outcome had a low hours cadet been at the controls??

[red alder]

Nope this SLF thinks that;

The insurance, public liability costs, other potential lawsuit costs, bits falling off the aircraft and damaging the runway costs and no doubt such things as licence renewal expenses give me some confidence that the flying machine will make it to the destination if only because it is too expensive for them not to.

If you are asking whether this is right way to go about things then that is a philosophical/moral discussion which I do not have the energy, understanding of the business or education for.


erm, just a POV.

Oh gollygosh...my first post...more gin, Geeves

[red alder]

I think it was, obviously being an airhead SLF I have forgot.

Anyway, magic post, it made me larf

[PAXboy]

red alder...if only because it is too expensive for them not to.If only that were the case ... Of course, one can never prove anything - particularly in the third world countries.

One of the greatest threats to airline safety is not the deliberative malfeasance of airline management but The Normalisation of Deviance. The most quoted example is the Challenger Shuttle disaster. There are some interesting items if you search for them.

Many suspect that the next big prang will prove to be entirely preventable. Not from some great mechanical or single human failure - but a series of small points of negligence of the "Well, it's always worked OK before" category. If you make minor changes in maintenance to save money - and nothing goes wrong. Then you congratulate yourself on saving money. If, over the next year - nothing goes wrong, it becomes the new normal. Then, you get the unusual combination of circumstance (like the 100 year flood level) and the plane crashes.

One example, why did the EuroStar train suddenly have such trouble with snow after all these years? Yes there was more snow but the problem of going from outside to tunnel and back with wet snow on the machine? Had they changed something in the eyars of not much snow? We will never know.

[pwalhx]

As a very frequent flyer I am concerned only to know that the people sat at the sharp end are fully qualified to do the job.

When I get on board the aircraft I don't know how qualified the flight crew are, it is not something that is published. ( I can make an informed judgement based on the carrier of course, a point to which I suggest your eluding).

What I do suspect is that as long as there isn't an accident certain LCC's in particular will push the envelope, however one bad incident and their image is tarnished beyond repair possibly, can they take that risk, I dont know.

So my view as SLF is to throw the question back to the OP, do you think that it is unsafe.

I can't get the thought out of my mind that there is an ulterior motive to the original question.

[BUGS/BEARINGS/BOXES]

Personally I'd be more concerned by widespread adoption of the Multi crew
certification (the name eludes me at the moment), where the actual
training is cut down.



Do explain............. how does 240 hours for 'multi-pilot' training convert to less than 150 hours training for a CPL/IR? :ugh:

[L'aviateur]

Is low houred (250 hour) pilots in itself the real problem? Bearing in mind that many of the legacy carriers used to sponsor pilots and some still do (as well as taking direct from OATS), therefore meaning that various BA and similar airline flights have been flown with a low houred FO. I would imagine though, they are normally partnered with very experienced Training Captains.
However; if the question relates to the pay to fly, and whether that changes the attitudes, and a company with a lot of low hour pilots places more demand on having training captains who may not be as experienced as you'd expect, then that makes the topic a bit more complex.

As a passenger do I worry about that? Not really, but I think that the general public perception is very different, particularly if they see two young pilots on a flight.
I personally don't fly with LCC often for practical and comfort reasons; but try to avoid flying with aircraft of certain registration nationalities based on safety records.

[radeng]

It's not that long ago that a Ryanair flight had the captain taken ill. The FO was unsure about the landing in Ireland as he didn't know the airport (Londonderry?)and turned back to Stanstead, which he did know. Fine, and sensible under the conditions. But just suppose he hadn't erred on the side of safety? Or that he had an emergency? Remember the BA 'plane where the windscreen on the captain's side popped out at 30,000 feet, and the captain nearly with it?

You would now have an inexperienced FO in an emergency situation quite likely landing at an airport he didn't know, quite possibly up at (even above if the situation is frantic enough) cross wind limits, while sod's law says it will be at night and raining..

Meantime, the CC could have problems getting into the cockpit to help with check lists...

So it's an unlikely scenario. So was the windscreen popping. So were situations such as the Virgin flight with 2 tons less cargo that all the weight and balance calcs were done on....because of outsourcing for lower cost.

[lowcostdolly]

pwalhx the OP does think this practice is unsafe or at least his posts in the Pilot's forum indicate safety is compromised at the very least. I think he wanted to get SLF perceptions here as well.

I think you are right about LoCo's "pushing the envelope" here and I work for a LoCo. The financial benefits of them having low houred pay to fly pilots far outweigh any potential safety risk for them.

Any safety risk is managed by having an experienced Captain flying with these Guys all of whom are qualified to fly a plane under normal conditions anyway and are building on their experience all the time. There is little risk to the company here IMHO and that's why they continue this practice.

That's not to say there is no risk. radeng cites some good examples below which I'm sure the respective companies thourght would never happen to them. Could a low hours pilot handle these? Who knows.

It's easy to assume these guys cannot handle the untoward and I worry about this sometimes when I fly. However there are incidences when they have and done it very well.

Unless there are hull losses associated with the LoCo pay 2 fly cadets then the public will hear nothing about any safety incidences which fall short of this. Or will they hear the good bits either!

PPRune is a safe haven for this valid subject to be discussed. I suspect if the OP works for a company who employs this practice he would feel unable to voice his concerns for fear of his career.

redalder please can I have some of whatever you are drinking? Perhaps then I can see what is humerous in my previous post or this topic generally :hmm:

[jimtherev]

red alderIf only that were the case ... Of course, one can never prove anything - particularly in the third world countries.

One of the greatest threats to airline safety is not the deliberative malfeasance of airline management but The Normalisation of Deviance. ...
One example, why did the EuroStar train suddenly have such trouble with snow after all these years? Yes there was more snow but the problem of going from outside to tunnel and back with wet snow on the machine? Had they changed something in the eyars of not much snow? We will never know.
Oh yes we do! Seals neglected: failed. Filters not replaced in a timely fashion: failed.

The French TGV is essentially the same train which sits in warm (-ish) stations between trips. Kept on trucking. Different maintenance regime.

Normalisation of Deviance again? Yup.

[radeng]

However, one must not lose sight of the fact that the most dangerous parts of airline flying are the journies along the motorways to and from the airport.

[pwalhx]

lowcostdolley, Thank you for the well reasoned response.