But before you get down on people with degrees, I will say this...just about every major argument I have had with someone, be it conceptual, philosophical, religious....etc...started with the other guy getting only as far as high school...they just can't think for the most part, unless they were self educated.

That's rather far off track, but are you saying that people without degrees argue more, or are you suggesting that people who don't educate themselves are unable to think?

Honestly, I don't think people should vote unless they have a college degree.

Really? Interesting. Given that voting is a civic duty pertaining to rights and responsibilities as a citizen, what does that do for the rights and citizenship of those who lack a degree, or their legal right to choose not to obtain one?

How does this impact airmanship and the great global conspiracy?

Guppy...this is what I was responding to....by Pugilistic...sorry for the thread wandering off.. -They say that a BS degree is Bull Shit, MS is More of the Same and PhD is just Piling it all Higher and Deeper....- But with regard to your thoughts...I didn't mean to imply un-educated people argue more, they just can't get the concepts that someone with a degree can...not always of course...but for the most part...they just don't have the exposure, the education to get the deep ideas...sounds horrible...but you know it's tough to ask someone to talk rocket science, if they haven't studied it. With regards to civic duty and all that...I think that anyone, everyone, and everyman voting has about run it's course. Politicians pandering to emotions and buzz words rather then facts, follow though, and reality has got to end. Dumb people need to be managed, not put in charge.

Personally, I prefer a hand-flown approach and I do all departures by hand;Wash your mouth out with soap, Guppy:D

20 years ago I was invited for tea and bikkies by the chief pilot of a well regarded Boeing 737 German charter operator. A couple of cadet first officers dobbed me for hand flying a SID raw data and other dreadful hand flying sins. They themselves were the product of the system that says manual flying is practically PAN PAN stuff.

The chief pilot was a kindly man and told me gently that his first officers were not trained to "monitor" raw data flying especially if hand flown, and thus were out of their comfort zone. Autopilot monitoring was their forte and would I please desist from being non-standard. By now these cadets would be experienced captains with thousands of hours on automatic pilots. This is now a permanent fact of life in most airlines including the major players such as Qantas, BA and Cathay.

Dumb people need to be managed, not put in charge.

Those without a degree are "dumb?"

Can you spell 'arrogance?'

Dumb people need to be managed, not put in charge.

While we might respect your right to hold your view, the real world doesn't support it to the extent you suggest.

I have to observe that a bit of paper, while being useful as an employment thing, appears rarely to correlate well, necessarily, with intelligence or ability .. more often, only earlier life opportunity for whatever reason. Indeed, there are brilliant folk with and without degrees .. and more than a few idiots around either with or without.

Or, as a colleague (who had no bits of paper) from my early days opined .. "you graduate chaps need us uneducated folks to run businesses so you can look forward to getting a job ... "

Tee Emm: your story epitomizes the point of this thread. Such a "skill" is deemed unwanted and un-necessary nowadays by too many up and comers, as well as too many operators. In fact, from your post such skills are not welcomed it seems. What's worse, some people do not acknowledge this as happening in the industry.

True story: 2 x illustrious B777 "Commanders" (as they insist on being called) from Air India were operating from EWR to FRA. They called a Boeing engineer from JFK to urgently come to EWR. The flight was obviously delayed. The "Commanders" were unable to program the route in the FMC. They were newly checked to line on the 777 (from the 744). For verification ask the JFK Boeing engineers. So, how did these guys get endorsed let alone checked to line as Captains on the type? Again some will argue that there is no slipping of standards.

Tertiary qualifications are nothing more than a piece of paper that allows a box to be ticked for a job application. Having said that, those who seek to improve their knowledge (theoretical) base in their chosen field should not be discouraged. For example; being able to calculate weather conditions, cloud types and predicted areas of instability from weather balloon soundings, all plotted on a met sounding chart will never be used in the real world. BUT, to have the understanding and appreciation of how our forcastes are calculated at a grass roots level is not a bad thing. In the same way, most of us (I hope) could discuss in detail wing design, longitudinal, normal and lateral stability (stick fixed and stick free), Vmcg, Vmca, etc. We can use this background knowledge to better appreciate our job, what we do and how we do it.

To some employers a tertiary credential shows that the candidate has the capacity for higher learning. Not saying either way if I agree with that sentiment, just stating what some CP's and / or companies I have experienced have believed that and recruit as such.

So, it comes down to the airline's requirements and desires as well as filter systems to determine who they select of the candidates. Nowadays there are far too many examples of short course pay-for-degree courses (eg: http://www.whnt.com/news/whnt-amcom-official-fake-diploma,0,3254099.story). The same goes for hours in the log book. On the selection panels I've been a part of we look at the facility the credentials were obtained from in the same way we considered the type of hours the candidate had accrued. A degree from uncle Bob's Academy of Excellence that is a post office box in the mid-west is different to a degree in Aerodynamics from M.I.T. Just as 2000 hrs of VFR operations instructing in the circuit or training area is completely different to 2000 hrs of single pilot multi-engine night IFR in OCTA with NDB and circling approaches in all types of weather and commercial pressures.

But, as we've seen testimony from numerous people posting on this thread (especially the Australian Capt's submission to the Senate Inquiry), too many airlines see credentials and experience are nothing but costs when they can fill the same control seats with lessor experienced pilots (loose term) who are willing to do it for far lessor pay. Others will argue that the [airline] training or standard of [new] hired pilots are not compromised by commercial influences, all be it in the face of overwhelming evidence and eye witness accounts to the contrary.

Given the tiny, narrow performance box in which airline operations conduct business, it's little wonder that many basic skills erode. Airline pilots have long been considered one of the more dangerous groups of renters when it comes to light airplanes. This isn't an indictment on the large airplane pilot, but it does spak to the lack of experience or recency in a particular area. Get someone who has only flown a 747 for several years to go land a Cessna 172, and see them try to flare high, fly the approach fast.

Skills are perishable.

Likewise, if one doesn't fly a visual approach for a long time, and sticks to only flying ILS approaches by reference to instruments, one may be less than stellar at making an approach using only ones eyes for reference (vs VASI, PAPI, glideslope, etc).

Where airlines push hard for their crews to make full use of automation and advanced technology, policies are often instituted requiring the use of that equipment. My own employer requires a written report to the Chief Pilot for failure to use autobrakes, for example. Landing performance is calculated using autobrakes, given a known acceleration value, and that value remains constant even with reverse thrust. Thus, it makes sense. Some operations have very different policies with regard to the same equipment.

Where operators insist on training and flying with the flight director as the minimum standard for "raw data," those receiving that training never have the opportunity to experience flight without the flight director. I can speak to several operations in which this is the case; worse-case scenario in simulator training involves no autopilot and flight director only, with FMC/FMS functions available. To my mind, this doesn't represent a high degredation in aircraft capability, and thus doesn't really address a potential real-world situaiton in which more might be lost. The operators with whom I am familiar who do this are not budget crunching, nor are they using inexperienced pilots. They are focusing on training based on reality. Their training is conducted hand in hand with the manufacturer, hand in hand with the overseeing governing body, and hand in hand with data showing mean times between failure for their equipment, and what historically can be expected. Accordingly, they make maximum use of training time addressing operational issues that are expected.

What this does NOT represent is a global conspiracy to lower the standard of airmanship, in order to save money. Certainly one can expect, where hand-flying is discouraged or restricted, a decrease in certain hand-flown skills. I've seen more than a few experienced hands reach for automation as soon as possible, particularly in a time of stress. It's taught at nearly all levels, where automation is available, to make use of that automation. It's standard fare to use it as much as possible during a checkride, for example, to reduce workload and provide one the greatest opportunity to show strengths and not weaknesses. Let's face it, given a checkride, who choses to fly it all by hand on raw data? That's not a "beancounter" debacle; that's a pilot call that nearly all will make.

When the chips are down and you're being evaluated, do you choose to handfly on raw data, or do you choose to use automation?

Guppy, you make some good points. I don't think it's a conspiracy either. I suspect that what laziness was instilled in the chief pilots to rely on the gear, has probably translated into hiring kids who need the autopilot to fly and big tubes to give them situational awareness.

...translated into hiring kids who need the autopilot to fly and big tubes to give them situational awareness.

Before we all get carried away with our fantasies about the new breed of incapable airline pilots, let me remind people that, of the six fatal accidents to scheduled airline flights in 2010, all happened to experienced pilots (I do acknowledge, but not necessarily agree with, Lebanese comments about the experience of the Ethiopian Airlines crew), and two happened to highly-automated aircraft in which experienced pilots executing routine manoeuvres appear to have mishandled some aspects of the automation somehow.

None happened to inexperienced pilots in a position in which they had to fly pitch, power, bank, AS, VS for a while and lost it.

PBL

I looked at most the replies so I am not sure if anyone has posted anything on this thread, regarding this but in my personal opinion, the biggest thread comes from these schemes that are offered for people to buy hours.

This results to guys/girls logging hours NOT base on their ability to achieve minimum standards to join an airline but based on their deepness of their pockets.

Some users might not agree , others might do.

I am not after a debate.

CY

One of the few things l do know.

lf anybody actually wants to be in charge of other people they should be automatically barred from doing so.

As the old man on Pawn Stars said about his son, he`s often wrong, but never in doubt.

lf anybody actually wants to be in charge of other people they should be automatically barred from doing so

Very entertaining, overrun!

Did anyone else notice the practical contradiction involved in this suggestion?

PBL

Just us l suppose.

lf a higher plane was involved then.... Doh !

You made me laugh.

but if your FO is from the USA, don't ask if its a sector ONE, TWO, OR THREE entry...we wouldn't have a clue

we use the terms: direct, teardrop, parallel!

;-)

You may need a sense of humor for this (if only it wasn't a parody too close to reality):

YouTube - Tommy's New Job - Come Fly With Me - BBC One (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=919IA_Lj0Ko)

I see Guppy is still going full throttle.Erosion of traditional airmen's skills is not to be underestimated or excused on the false pretext that they're no longer required.Thats an arrogant and dangerous assumption that may come back and haunt you.I dont say its a conspiracy though.Thats too convoluted.Its money.
To a certain extent,IT IS now a PUSH-BUTTON world so why not have button-pushers?On the surface,I'd go along with that.On the surface.

I can see where Guppy gets his POV.After all,he works for an outfit where you need a letter not to use AB.Why does Boeing have an OFF position then?

It's morally reprehensible to hire pilots that rely on systems that up until just a few years ago were considered luxuries. While the trend may be to reduce pilot error by introducing more reliable automation, it still doesn't account for the fact that machines break, and when they do, human intervention is needed. The chief pilots at major airlines have such a low sense of duty and responsibility towards their passengers that it should be prosecuted criminally. But maybe the saving grace is such, that the passengers, in search of lower fares, combined with a similar low moral conviction, coupled with sufficient apathy, in concert with the complete inept aviation authorities, time card punchers, with little interest in passenger safety, with more interest in making it to retirement...that from a very Darwinian standpoint...everyone is getting exactly what they deserve. Bottom line - It's hard to get worked up over bad hiring practices, supported from the top down, at all levels. Rant over. I have moved on from being the one guy in the room that believes a pilot has a duty towards his passengers, his industry, to his professional. Drag aviation further into gutters if you wish, but just keep in mind, some off us can still fly planes when all the lights go out, and that I am sure, makes you just a little nervous.

tff suggests that machines break, and when they do, human intervention is needed.

As a driving philosophy, this has to cope with, say, the history of major accidents in 2010. This might tell you, if we are going to speak in generalisations, that humans break during routine manoeuvres, and relatives of the deceased passengers - and others - might be wondering whether machine intervention would have been preferable.

PBL

Machines & systems do indeed break so designers & manufacturers invest (large amounts) of time & money to make them better, more reliable & therefore less likely to fail.

Through better design they become more reliable.

Pilots are subject high stress loads requiring high degrees skill & competence, depending on the scenario. As one of the human elements of the "system" of course it too can fail & will fail under certain stresses. Just like a spar that has a defined loading limit. How well designed & manufactured will define that breaking point.

The same can be said for airline pilot training & standards.

Pilots are subject high stress loads.... it too can fail & will fail under certain stresses.
well said Top Tup. Stress (http://www.avmed.in/2011/02/stressed-out-or-stretched-beyond/) is often overlooked among trained pilots, though they remain as susceptible to stress as anyone else. It is just that they probably learn to 'grin and bear'. And yet when stretched beyond limits (http://www.avmed.in/2011/02/stressed-out-or-stretched-beyond/)...may lead to serious harm to themselves and/or their performance, in turn affecting safety.

Hand fly or fall back on the automatics for a test?

That choice would surely depend on your confidence, personal flying skill and currency. Lacking the first two, the obvious answer is stick to automatics.
Frankly, how can an Examiner say afterwards the ILS that the autopilot flew on your behalf, was perfect - and then give you as the pilot, a top assessment for the manoeuvre?

One point of view is that a true proficiency test should be flown as 50 percent raw data non automatics and the remaining 50 percent a test of the pilots ability at programming the automatics. From reading Pprune it's a good bet there would an awful lot of pilots failing the test...

That choice would purely depend on your personal flying skill and currency. Frankly, how can an Examiner say afterwards the ILS that the autopilot flew on your behalf, was perfect - and then give you as the pilot, a top assessment for the manoeuvre. One argument is that a true proficiency test should be flown as 50 percent raw data non automatics and the remaining 50 percent testing the skill of the pilot at programming the automatics.

There's no argument to be made, and that was my point. When the criteria is a coupled approach, one flies a coupled approach.

Given the choice to hand-fly an approach during a checkride, most will choose automation. It allows enhanced situational awareness, and it allows one to expand one's focus beyond the panel directly beyond one's face. It promotes a greater opportunity to pass. When one is under scrutiny and one's employment and certification is only the line in a proficiency check, how many prefer to hand-fly the procedure vs. doing it on autopilot?

Guppy - No one discounts the benefits of the gear afforded to crews these days...the question remains, have the pilots learned to rely on the gear so entirel,y that should the cockpit go dark the plane is lost? I submit this: Having trained pilots - I have seen them overloaded with so much gear to work, that turning off extraneous instruments has allowed them to successfully complete an approach. I have also witnessed pilots, that can't fly a simple ILS, and hold two needles together, without the situational awareness provided by a moving map. In both cases, as I sat there, there was no doubt in my mind, that both pilots of commercial caliber, would have, had I not been there, kill all passengers on board, and wreck the aircraft. Fortunately, these deficiencies were found in the training environment. Anyone who feels that a pilot can be reduced to checklist reader and button pusher, is not operating in the real world of flying, and is putting people's lives at risk.

Will the aircraft be lost if it goes dark? No one can answer that save those in that boat, but I can say that it's a scenario we get at every simulator recurrent, and we had it a few months ago on the line at night in a very mountainous hostile area. The stabilization items on that procedure are two in number, and worked. We had three distinct problems, but the first two steps gave back power and the third restored essential power. The rest was a function of the checklist.

The assertion of the thread isn't that skills might erode in the presence of automation, however. The assertion of the thread is that an intentional, determined effort is underway on an international basis by airline management "beancounters" to undermine and diminish airmanship. This is not happening.

Who has suggested that a pilot can be reduced to a "button pusher?"

The problems you witnessed were caught and handled in training, as you described. Accordingly, wherein in the failure of the system? Did the "beancounters" attempt to undermine this process and force the deficient into the system, or suggest that greater training would be a waste or excess of valued funds? Seems that your post suggests that the system does work. It catches, and corrects fault, and that training is beneficial.

For those who received the necessary training, were the problems solved? Is it possible, then, that without regard to rogue "beancounters" who run amok among us, training might be one of the key ingredients in ensuring standardization and proficiency, and upholding the indefinite yardstick of airmanship?

Guppy - I submit that your correct : there is no conspiracy...that as someone said about conspiracies...'most people are too stupid to keep a big secret'. Certainly I don't don't think Airline chief pilots are above this maxim. What I do posit as theory, is that the same set of reasons that has allowed our leaders to embark on unjustified wars, the collapse of the financial system, the imprisoning of people, later exonerated on DNA evidence...are the same as why chief pilots are now systematically hiring the most inexperienced pilots they can find : Profit, Greed, Apathy, moral vacuity, fear of losing their jobs, succumbing to group think, social and peer pressures, and probably a whole host of factors that basically add up to the very worst of human qualities. Maybe in the end, machines should fly the planes.

"Conspiracy"??? That is something that was asserted by others: an assumption based on the factual examples given. No Oliver Stone style deep seeded plot was suggested by those of us stating that standards and airmanship have and continue to decline in today's airline world. What is suggested / believed is that in the pursuit of the almighty dollar, share price, quarterly bonus and endless trimmings of costs airmanship has suffered.

Airline systems and cultures that are willing to deliberately ignore better qualified and experienced pilots over those with little to zero qualifications and experience have what is known commonly as CAUSE and EFFECT. The same is said for short cuts in training and proficiency. There have been several of us on this thread recounting first hand experiences in numerous airlines where this is the case.

Those without such first hand eye-witness accounts seek to discredit them as a false "beancounter conspiracy".

For those who received the necessary training, were the problems solved? Is it possible, then, that without regard to rogue "beancounters" who run amok among us, training might be one of the key ingredients in ensuring standardization and proficiency, and upholding the indefinite yardstick of airmanship?

Too true. And for those who did not, do not and will never receive the proper training in standardization and proficiency?? What of the innocent passenger suffering at the hands of utter incompetence? The lives lost if another "pilot" is at the controls when the autopilot is disengaged and cannot recover from straight and level flight and the Capt the next time cannot get back into the cockpit? Again, I still look back at my experiences at Air India and of the ever increasing media reports showing [criminally] negligent practices still on the rise. The latest is of a Capt who's landing technique was to land on the nose gear of the A320 (DGCA finds fault with IndiGo pilot's landing technique : North: India Today (http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/129744/latest-headlines/indigo-pilot-makes-erronous-landing-risks-life.html)) She was exposed, but only after a series of damaged nose gear assemblies. How the hell did it get to that stage?

Is there a "conspiracy"? Do airline management execs secretly meet together a mile under ground, with secret handshakes in sound proof bunkers to devise a Dr Evil-esque plan to lower airmanship? No. To believe so is idiotic. Could there be a perception that experience and credentials can be sacrificed and thus lower costs and increase profits? To deny that is naive and ignorant to all the evidence presented.

Cause and effect. No conspiracy needed.

Tip - What you fail to understand is that pay has nothing to do with this. A first year FO with 500 hours makes the same as a first year FO with 10,000 hours Chief pilots don't want experienced pilots in the system that can stand up to them. They want marsh mellows that take orders, ever if that means one going in once in a while, The plane is insured, there is no responsibility to the passengers, It's about getting away with what they can get away with.

Flick.... Yes and No.

Take the situation at QF / JQ. QF offers a promotion to their pilots (both QF and JQ seniority list) for a position in (for example) KL or SIN. The pilots look at but discover it's a (for example) 30-40% salary reduction. They cannot accept that for whatever reason. Integrity being one I would think. So, QF/JQ get precisely what they were after in the first place and employ local pilots on those local terms who do not have the same training or experience that the "home growth" pilots.

Another example. Say a pilot is earning $10 k per month and that is what his/her experience and credentials command. Jobs are offered at now $4 or $6 k a month. The pilot commanding the $10 k per month salary will not accept that slap in the face (as he or she may see it) however one with greatly less experience, less training who sees that salary as a promotion from where they are presently will. This is exactly what is going on at CX.

Personally, I am not about discussing salaries but one cannot deny the impact they have. To what degree is up to the individual. What I have been arguing all along is that airline managements who seek to lower terms and conditions, to lower training standards and allow the bar of skill, ability and airmanship to be lowered.... This is exactly what goes on at airlines like Air India where the xenophobic nature of the place is hell bent on kicking out the expats with 10,15, 20+ thousand hours of wide body experience and replace them with 185-220 hr FO's or 1500 hr TT Capts. As these kids see it, they have a CPL and therefore are "qualified". In theory they are, in reality they haven't a bloody clue to the extent where, and from what I witnessed, it's criminally negligent. I do not deny that these kids give it there all when in the seat but what is level or standard of their "all" when incidents have exposed the standards accepted (zero IF skills, fraudulent log books, Capts landing on the nose assembly, etc, etc, etc...)? Is their level of proficiency (airmanship) the same as one with vastly greater experience and training received from an airline with a different culture to standards, training, checking and airmanship? That is my point and argument.

I do not blame the pilots. I blame the numerous airline cultures whereby recruitment and training standards are permitted to slip to lower levels for the sake of profiteering. A TRE/I should be permitted to do his/her job and fail a pilot if need be or extend the sim time to offer training (not only checking!) when needed. As witnessed by myself and others on this thread some airline cultures try to force TRE/I's to pass pilots due commercial pressures despite the threat of safety and airmanship. That is for their own (TRE/I) conscience to work out.

I still argue and ask the question whether the skill and airmanship demonstrated by the examples offered in the very first post on this thread are a dying breed.

I have my opinion based on first hand accounts and what I see and hear every day (eg RT standards for one). Others have theirs. I'm not saying I'm right, just my opinion. :ok:

Whatever the reasons, as long as everyone is ok with the idea that once the cockpit goes dark, two kids will look at each in disbelief, and a plane load of passengers will be lost...carry on.

When older guys look at these "kids" in disgust, they are forgetting something: they were once young and green too, and when they were, the older guys were looking at them the same way.

I look at people who have more interest in operating a computer than in flying an airplane in disgust, regardless of age. A good story once told to me by a very senior CA at another airline (who started in a DC-6 and progressed through to the 767 over the years) told of him stepping out of the cockpit to take a leak, when he got back he heard the overspeed warning going off and his younger FO was laboring over the FMS to try to get the airplane to slow down, he took about a second to figure out what was going on and simply said "pull the :mad: power back". It's that sort of "computer dependent" mentality that people like myself don't appreciate. And I'm hardly what you might refer to as "old".

I am so sick of what's going on in the industry right now, that I have considered going and working for the FAA. Someone has to look out for the passengers.

Plasmech,

You're a student pilot. That has a lot of bearing on your position in this discussion. Have you read the thread?

Over here the 200 wonder cadet is a thing that has been normal for the last 60 years in airlines, so nothing new at all about it.

Flight International 5-11 April 2011.
Editorial Comment on page 9.
Headline: TRAGICALLY FAMILIAR

Excerpts: "If the circumstances surrounding the loss of Ethiopean Airlines 409 at Beirut evoke a miserable sense of deja vu, it is hardly surprising. Another dark and thundery night, another departure over featureless terrain, another fatal spiral. The similarities with the Kenya Airways 507 inquiry...make it hard to avoid wondering how far the parallels go. It will mean a fully functional 737 spent 4 minutes blundering aimlessly through Mediterranean airspace on a flight path punctuated by automated warning after automated warning. In which case someone needs to ask; where was the airmanship?"

The copilot had just over 600 flying hours with half that on the 737. In other words what some cynics would term a 200 hour wonder...skilled at watching an autopilot but precious little else.

From FI again: "It is hard to ignore the near-identical nature of the two accidents, and - with all due defernce to the final investigation report - hard not to suspect that the root cause of Ethiopean 409's loss will not be anything complicated, but rather something depressingly basic."

It makes you wonder if too much accent is placed on the use of automatics during simulator training - when by the looks of things the priority should be on hand flying raw data instrument flying skills.

skilled at watching an autopilot but precious little else .... when by the looks of things the priority should be on hand flying raw data instrument flying skills

As A37575 and I can reflect from a previous life, it is not too hard to bring these kids up to a competence level where they can drag the jet around, single pilot, hand flown raw data, and in lousy weather .. and land safely (and, for some, even with a modest touch of elegance) off an OEI ILS.

Doesn't make them aces or give them much depth of judgement. Does, however, give them the basics of recovery on a dark night if the Commander is dead or away with the fairies.

On average, about 1-2 simulator sessions worth of I/F and OEI practice during their initial endorsement programs - in the program I am referring to we had a reasonable control over getting a few extra hours in the box for the kids and we milked it for their benefit.

We have both had raw cadets straight off their < 200 hour CPL program able to fly a SP high workload OEI circuit in the 737 sim by the end of their endorsement training.

In the real world it's not hard but it does take management gumption to spend a few extra dollars during training programs, especially at the initial endorsement stage.

No way JT

Been to single pilot school too many times to let that pass.

The 200 hr SIC looking at his dead captain in the left seat is pretty much good for working the autopilot to a VMC airport with a long runway.

The 200 hr SIC looking at his dead captain in the left seat is pretty much good for working the autopilot to a VMC airport with a long runway.

.. not on my watch.

If such is an option - absolutely the way to go and what we trained the kids to do.

However, if the option is not available, I sleep much better knowing that I gave the kid the basic skills to find his/her way back to the runway with a bunch of things conspiring to thwart a safe recovery.

While there is not a great deal of pragmatic sense in spending a lot of time training for things so far out of left field that the cost/benefit is extremely marginal, this one is too easy and, I suggest, not too great a cost to make it a worry.

Quite apart from which, the general benefit accrued in the ramping up of basic I/F skills produces a much more polished student at the end of the endorsement program - the self confidence benefits are palpable.

Afraid I just can't see anything much in training to the lowest common denominator - such an attitude probably is a result of acculturation as a product of the old (pre-1989) Ansett approach to over training.

An aside - on a contract years ago I had an initial command upgrade crew. The would-be captain was somewhat fearful of OEI work due, largely, to his training background in that particular airline. We were able to beg a few extra hours from the sim techs during late night sessions with the result that my gentle ministrations had both guys (upgrade captain and intake F/O) able to handle absolutely critical OEI failures during T/O etc., etc. It brings a smile even now to recall how their self confidence zoomed when they could handle a Vmcg-limited seizure (that operator had an FDR modelled bird strike which was somewhat eye-opening) in near nil vis with a min V1/V2 schedule AND be able to backtrack on the opposite end localiser through to clean up while keeping the box under control.

Mind you, they did end up with very sweaty shirts by the end of the sessions.

As the upgrade fellow observed during coffee before heading off home .. something along the lines of "I used to be frightened of failures, now it's a breeze".

Made a good captain, apparently, after breezing through the command checkout - overtraining has its advantages.

I'd love to know what outfit they flew for.

Simuflite and Flightsafety would come to a crashing halt if they required all pilots to hand fly single pilot raw data all the type rating courses for a pass.

Moderate size airline with its own sim centre and training facilities.

Our little group had some reservations with philosophy and derived a small satisfaction from seeing the general standards improvement as a consequence (in part) of our somewhat different approach to training philosophy.


The driver for specific skills development generally wasn't the cute stuff like being able to do a zero/zero landing - that's easy with a bit of practice - but, rather, the benefit accrued for basic raw data hand flown I/F skills.

Some of the low time pilots we were seeing were, without putting too fine a point on it, a bit average in the skill base. It became apparent, early on, that spending a bit of time on I/F skills early in the endorsement program paid handsome benefits later as the flight management workload increased.

Generally, to maximise utilisation and progress, we would use a vignette approach ie a few minutes interspersed here and there to push skills development. Once the old standards were OK (turning climb/descent with accel/decel against the clock) the best sources of short sharp high concentration work is final approach and takeoff. Hence the use of short exercises using high freeze/reposition rates - working up to zero/zero takeoff or landing with progressively higher concentration requirements.

It's interesting to see just how much progress one can get with 5 minutes inserted here and there between programmed exercises. The other fatigue management trick is to get both pilots to do one exercise each in turn from whichever seat so that each is kept as fresh as possible.

come to a crashing halt if they required

Two factors here -

(a) management desire - do we wish to extract the maximum value out of the sim's capability or just do the box ticking exercise ?

(b) instructor initiative - a bit of sensible enthusiasm in the back can increase the session productivity dramatically. Once the folk in front realise that there is no penalty involved if they don't do as well as they might wish, they can relax and run with the sim's capabilities for personal training. Obviously, the training and checking bits have to be put firmly into two quite separate paddocks if the thing is to have any chance of working. The integrity and personality of the instructor becomes fairly important.

JT - Help me to understand what possible motivation an airline can have to hire and train the most inexperienced pilots in the industry.

When I try to put myself in the shoes of an airline, the only thing I can come up with is 'it's easier to train them to our way of doing things, then to find guys that agree to our way of doing things'.

That's just a guess of course.

Far be it for me to aspire to such matters of philosophy.

However, having hired and fired, I am firmly of the view that one prefers to seek the appropriate person and then train to a requirement rather than the other way around. If that training means some unlearning and retraining, so be it. I value experience and accept that age generally goes hand in hand with it. Hence I tend to look to folk who have the occasional senior moment but have a solid track record of been there, done that. I have a chap in his mid-60s whom I put on several years ago - I consider that a coup, given his vast experience in his field - he is a fine mentor to the younger chaps who will benefit from his counsel.

As Joe Bloggs in the cabin, I far prefer to delude myself into believing that the guys/gals up front are greybeards/blue rinse set and have a whole bunch of runs on the board when it comes to out of left field situations.

I shudder to contemplate the scenario of a captain (presumably experienced appropriately) with an F/O straight out of boot camp and only the barest of a box ticking endorsement. I came through a system wherein we were backhanded until we came up to a reasonable standard. Never did one have any concern that the average line F/O couldn't SP the bird back to wherever it needed to be taken in whatever weather if the boss fell over

JT - Few people have the ability to write so much, and say so little.

Again, why the push for 200 hour pilots, when you could just pick off the top of the resume pile.

It's pretty clear you have to look for 200 hour pilots, actually chase them down, when in fact you have guys walking in resumes with thousands of hours.

So again, why specifically market to pick, hence to train, low time pilots? What is the rationale?

Am I to understand your not comfortable actually answering this question directly?

You do like to flatter people.

However, apologies - I didn't realize that the hiring question was directed at me. I had no involvement in the hiring side on this one and was but one of the sim instructors for a fill in contract requirement.

As to my own views, I start with applicants

(a) sorted by qualifications/experience and then

(b) subsorted by personal qualities within the experience groups

This might then see some of the top/bottom folk in the quality sort being moved into adjacent experience groupings ie it is a two pronged effort to get a match of good people with the best experience on offer

(c) next output is a ranked list for assessment, followed by

(d) a ranked list for interview.

I must note that I have seen some fairly impressive and promising 200 hour folk. One such comes to mind - trained him up on the 737 a few years ago and he has recently got his command and will do very well, I'm certain.

However, overall I would go for the experienced pilot providing that the personal qualities are good. There is no point buying into troubles - and I have seen that happen on occasion in the past.

On the other hand, if the priority is to pay peanuts, then one might just as well start with the down and outs. Fortunately, I have never been forced into that sort of situation and, in any case, would walk before I accepted such executive pressure.

As an aside, my now-retired former business partner, as CP of a small airline operating jet equipment, did just that when the MD sought to direct that he do this and that, both of which went against the professional grain - we both were mates with the MD and continued to be so - but that didn't flavour the professional assessment and his decision to resign from the CP chair.

I'm never afraid to state my view regardless of the topic ...

I could easily be wrong, but I think this thread was started because OP questioned the likelihood of a similar outcome to the QF32 occurring with the current generation of 200 hour "zero to hero" types. There's no doubting that the QF32 crew's performance was excellent, if not exemplary. But I'll suggest that most of their problem solving skills used came from the training and experience which they had acquired through operating complex airliners over the past years. But like it or not, they were products of a system, in this case the Qantas system. They were also working for a company that has excellent in flight support. I'm not trying to take anything away from these guys, but they were products of the system - in this case as trainers, a system which they helped create.

Bashing around the sky in C152s, meat bombing or doing fire patrols for hours on end or operating IFR in wretched pistons twins with dubious maintenance histories does give you some experience - but is it transferable to complex modern airlines? I'll only go so far as to say "maybe." There's a reasonable chance that guys with this background end up with 2,000 hours after a couple of years, but is that one hours' experience 2,000 times over? The pilot probably is transferable, but his experience might not be.

The new generation of pilots, like the ones beforehand, are firstly products of the selection process. Without the right candidate (personality, enthusiasm, intelligence, trainability, motor skills, discipline, health, etc. - not necessarily the standard HR rubbish!) you won't end up with a capable pilot. The second and most important thing that creates a capable pilot is the training and support systems inside the airline that will shape, guide and support them in the future. Their previous hours matter little, it's the persons basic skills and their mental suitability that count. Just because you had to waste a few years of your life flying a bug smasher doesn't mean to say that this is the only way to get good competent pilots who will save the day when the chips are down. Over the years I've seen 200 hour cadets who are excellent and 5,000 hour pilots who I wouldn't let park my car. (There are also some 10,000 hour pilots who I'd happily leave at the side of the road in a rainstorm as well.)

As for dealing with automation, if fitted, I've learnt that the sooner you learn to understand it the better. This will enable you determine if it's working properly. If it is, use it and it will "unload you" enabling you to get on with the next task in hand. If it's not, you know to ignore it and then proceed a little more slowly. Turning the automatics off when they are working perfectly but other things are not, is not the wisest of moves in my opinion.

I'll agree that there are too many people who can't fly who are actually flying for a living. But this is a product of the system we work in. Weakness in employment law, union agreements, government oversight, poor training and checking systems and corporate greed are all responsible for these people remaining in their seats. What should be done is to work out a fix. Is it training or chopping or a bit of both? It would be difficult to add more technology as the law of diminishing returns has probably set in - so solutions have to be sort in other areas.

Oh, and I nearly forgot - we're still working with Mk I human beings.

PM

Sounds like one organization culls for personality, another culls for skills. Having pondered this, I think culling for personality might make sense in a team environment where skill levels and performance are not going to a have a serious effect or outcome on the team.

Do you hire a chef to work at Taco Bell, or do you train a kid who gets along with everyone?

Conversely, sports teams hire the most disreputable of people because it's ONLY the performance that counts. That could probably be said of needing a Brain Surgeon, do you hire the guy that is a pal and buddy, or someone that has a 99% cure rate, but isn't very social.

Either way, the irrefutable fact is this, more buddies and pals have crashed planes when the circumstance was out of their limited experience and training parameters.
So I tend to lean on the side that if a chief pilot can chase some experience that is relevant to the operation and be man enough to deal with professional people, and not run a kindergarten, maybe the passengers will be better off.

If the argument can be made in real statistical terms that proper training and candidate selection actually is a performance bump over guys with decades in the left seat, I would like to see it.

It just seems to me this a management issue, where the chief pilot just wants guys that all get along, a harmonious group of kids that do what they are told...like the military.

Over here the 200 wonder cadet is a thing that has been normal for the last 60 years in airlines, so nothing new at all about it.

Flight International 5-11 April 2011.
Editorial Comment on page 9.
Headline: TRAGICALLY FAMILIAR

Now that you put my quote in context to accidents of african airlines i guess i have to say what i mean by "over here". I was talking of course about western european airlines which use a very thorough selection and training program, not about african airlines with in general (and usually ethiopean is not counted into that) very poor standards.

I was a product of one of such training programs myself (Lufthansa, however not for Lufthansa themselves) and work now in an airlines that uses a similar program. There is a very good reason to train your own pilots. You can choose extremely careful who to take on for flight training, then monitor them every step on the way and get exactly what you want. And of course flying OEI raw data approaches is normal part of that training and of course checking.

When it comes to direct entry pilots we have to apply the same thorough testing, but we have to be more thorough during training as those pilots quite often have to unlearn quite a bit of their prior experience, especially if the background is single hand flying or mostly VFR stuff, 2000 hours dropping parachuters is not really useful in an airliner.

Our aim is not to get the cheapest, it is rather to get the best suited with a nearly guaranteed success during training and fitting in well with the existing pilot corps, replacing someone halfway through his typerating (which is payed for by the company of course) is extremely expensive, better to be sure that the individual in question has a high chance of success. And quite often we see that in young pilots, but we do like to take on more experienced ones as well if they fit into the mold.

It is mainly not about hours as the main pointer for experience though, it is about selection and training aimed for the intended operation.

Well I think in the end, the philosophy is simple...your hiring people to fill seats, not throw touch downs in the NFL.

When the performance required of our employees drops a notch in the job description, it's pretty obvious that management will drop the employee performance required and pay, to fit the description.

As automation increases, I suspect as the pilot skills become even less necessary, being a team player will become more of an issue in the cockpit..

....unless the plane crashes...then of course we want pilots again...but then we forget...and drop the standards, hire buddies and pals over experience....then a plane crashes....and we want pilots again.....and then that passes, and we forget......

As automation increases, I suspect as the pilot skills become even less necessary, being a team player will become more of an issue in the cockpit.

Yes and no. First the No. As automation increases, so the prospect of it containing bugs increases. There will be bugs in the software as written, some in the compilers used to create the software, some in the processors in the FMS boxes, others in the avionics hardware. So even writing perfect software gives no guarantee that a 100% reliable system will be in the air - so if just for that reason, pilots will be required. Then you have the "Ah, we hadn't considered that" aspect. When in service, faults are often found with the basic aircraft hardware, like valves, transducers, sensors etc., resulting in unpredictable behaviour of the aircraft - only for the reason than that particular failure was not properly considered in the software design. Pilot skills are then required to solve these problems in flight, often without a checklist. And here's the Yes - When solving these problems, it really helps if you approach this as a team exercise.

PM

There have been so many of these loss of control on dark night fatal crashes that it is hard to know what was the initial start of the accident sequence. Was it poor knowledge of automatics? Was it simply poor instrument flying ability?

The crash that really made up my mind where the problem lay was, I think, the Eygpt Air 737 that departed on a dark night and within five minutes was out of control in a steep spiral dive with the captain who was PF repeatedly shouting at his first officer the words "ENGAGE THE AUTOPILOT -ENGAGE AUTOPILOT" How chilling is that when the captain had no idea what he was doing and wanted the automatic pilot to save his life.
There is something deadly wrong with a system that permits some one like that to be in command of an airliner...

First off there isn't a 200 hour pilot that would pass an ATP flight test with the FAA.

Over and out, done, not even a debate. 200 hour pilots live in a rarefied world where they are culled and trained to fly for a particular operation, to standards, by exemption from ATP standards, in the shadows, outside of the purview of the FAA, being tested by their own airline examiners. That system would crash if these pilots were trained then sent to the FAA for testing in real planes and held to ATP standards.

Flying abilities aside, maybe a fresh 200 hr pilot, fresh on emergency procedures, fresh on hand flying might actually do better then a lazy 10,000 pilot who hasn't hand flown in years. Circumstances exist where training can supersede the performance of supposed performance coming from experience.

The argument can also be made that when you train, you know what your pilot knows, as opposed to a guy walking in with 10,000 hours and it's probably BS, and his experience might actually be so far removed from the operation your hiring for, that it's irrelevant. Like a 10,000 hr flight instructor in Florida with zip IFR, Multi, jet, crew, or trip experience. Or an airline pilot looking to go corporate and he's never flown single pilot, he's never managed maintenance, he's never planned a flight.

So certainly I can argue for training to an operations needs, but there is no way, if you take the 1500 ATP standard as the starting place for a pilot skills and experience to be at, will a 200 hour pilot be able to step up to that level through training.

Ergo, if you did by some miracle train the 200 pilot to pass a real ATP standards flight test...would he be able to handle a situation outside of the checklist, where he needed to make a decision based on aeronautics, logic, experience?

I see it like this. Some people are working around the standards, some see the standards as really a starting point. Some shoot for higher ground, some are simply trying to get away with what they can. It's a philosophy and attitude difference.

Not quite ready to live in the gutter myself, not quite ready to sell out. Maybe it's because I don't have to. It's like taking steroids in baseball? Is that what it takes to be competitive or is the reality that some players need them to be in the game?

Regardless, even congress had enough with this silliness and bumped the hours back up to 1500.

Rant over.

Nice to see you back ssg, is that now your nr. 15 persona?

First off there isn't a 200 hour pilot that would pass an ATP flight test with the FAA.

The practical test flight is not a real hard thing to do, is it? It can be done during a normal OPC check in the simulator, something even our new 75 hour MPL wonders can do without a problem. The oral exam is really another thing though as we do not train for that, same as US pilots usually do not train for a 14 part, 3 day written exam.

However it is correct that no 200 hours wonder can take a FAA ATP test as you need 1500 hours for that, however not 1500 hours of training, just plain 1500 hours of no special training value. By the way, 200 hour wonders do not get an ATP, they do get a CPL and after 1500 hours many of which have to be done to certain standards they will get an ATP. Back in my days we actually did get a national ATPL at 200 hours, however that was restricted to SIC only and needed 2.200 hours of SIC airline flying to get upgraded into a full ATPL (by which time JAA came around and i just got the JAA ATPL instead). Airline flying means to pass a full blown simulator check to full ATP standards every 6 months though.

The real scary stuff, as A37575 correctly mentions, is bad training, bad selection, bad standards. Quite often seen in regions with somewhat dodgy oversight. Yes, the report of the egypt air is chilling, as is the animation of aeroflot 821 (crash in perm). And to switch on automatic if in doubt goes against anything i was trained for, if in doubt reduce the level of automation, if that means flying raw data manual that is nice as you know exactly what you are doing and how the aircraft responds to that. Bad training might train to rather increase the level of automation, which does not help at all as it removes the pilot farther from the aircraft. However any competent pilot should not be only proficient in flying manual, raw data, he has to be able to use all aspects of automation as well.

Denti -

Feel free to sell the world that 75 hour pilots can walk out to a twin and pass the ATP flight test without the moving maps and such, I know it's crap, so does everyone else.