Training and Knowledge

[TonyDavis]

As an experienced MCC instructor of quite a few years and a Captain with two major airlines and an IRE/TRE on medium and large jets, I would like to pass on my thoughts about the standard of trainees coming out of UK flight schools with 250 hours. Most of you think that you are ready to operate in the RHS of something like a B737 or A320. From what I have observed you are miles away from it.
The lack of technical knowledge in safety critical areas is quite honestly shocking. I am not talking about how an RMI works or how to be a met man, but everyday procedures. Most of you know nothing of regulated take off weights (or mass in newspeak), what you would do if you had an engine failure after V1. You do not know the stopping distance on a foggy runway regarding red and white lights or airport markings. You have not developed any flight management skills and most of you don’t have a clue how to fly a SID or a STAR. You have no clue as to ICAO operations and PANS-OPS and a lot of you do not know even what ICAO is. The list goes on and on.
It is not the fault of the students in most cases. The training you receive now is all based on Rote learning and is totally cost driven. The failing falls at the door of the Authority for allowing the system to fail. The reason behind that is mainly cost driven and the lack of properly trained staff.
I have noticed that students from the third world are much more motivated (I suppose that stems from being close to poverty). If you want Europeans in the flight deck in the future then things had better change and fast.
I am hoping that the MPL will rectify a lot of the problems. The only problem there is that the European carriers are not really interested in sponsoring any large number of pilots. MPL is being taken up big time in the Far-East and that is where our future pilots will probably come from.
Quite honestly I now get quite scared sitting in the back as a passenger if anything should go wrong.

[jhr187]

What an odd post. Anything particular brought that on?

I'm sure everyone who's fresh out of the wrapper will have a lot to learn, but equally probably wouldn't have got their licences if they didn't meet certain standards.

Everyone was a low-houred newbie once...

[TonyDavis]

I think if you nfollow the thread on AF447, you will realise why I am concerned and why it would be advantageous to discuss the root cause.

[rogerg]

[QUOTE][Quite honestly I now get quite scared sitting in the back as a passenger if anything should go wrong/QUOTE]

Well I do the same as TD but most of the students that come through my hands are very competent, but just inexperienced, which is what I would expect. Reading the last few posts on AF477 the problem seems to be the captain, combined with incomplete/incorrect training of all the pilots.

[ATC Watcher]

250 hours.........ready to operate in the RHS of something like a B737 or A320.

Relieve me from a doubt; are there airlines today thatdo this ?

I've seen this on ATRs and Beechs 1900 but on A320s/737s ?

[KiloMikePapa]

I think if you follow the thread on AF447, you will realise why I am concerned and why it would be advantageous to discuss the root cause.

That's quite a generalization you are making. Don't tar them all on basis of the apparent non-professional behaviour of a few.

I'm just a lowly PPL but I have been in touch with quite a number of instructors while I was a student pilot and I can tell you that some of them were pretty bad at communicating effectively with the student-pilot both in ground school and while doing air work. Technical proficiency is simply not enough: as an instructor you also have to get the message across (I am a technical trainer by profession). This observation however does not lead me to state that all flight instructors are bad communicators.

[Piltdown Man]

Relieve me from a doubt; are there airlines today that do this ?

Yes there are, some of whom have the Euro as their unit of currency. And I have to say to that to some extent, TonyDavis is correct about the output from some schools. But that has to be the fault of the overseeing authority. The dinosaurs who dream up the crap that is stuffed in the CPL/ATPL haven't a clue about what would be useful so instead ask totally ridiculous questions about airco. plumbing and drift in 'earth tied gyros'.

I believe my company, amongst others, tries to remedy the above short comings as part of its TQ, Recurrent (including manually recovery of aircraft from unusual attitudes and upsets) and Line Training programmes. But having said that, I'm pretty impressed with the quality of the new guys (and girls) - their knowledge (of things useful) after completion of Line Training appears to be pretty good. If they are deficient in any any area it's people skills, but that comes with experience - sometimes rapidly obtained when discover interesting things in their coffee and meals.

[TonyDavis]

Relieve me from a doubt; are there airlines today thatdo this ?

Unfortunately yes.

I have trained a very large number of MCC students and it is not just a few who have very poor knowledge. I also agree that the standard of instruction is part of the problem. A lot of ground instructors just read from a book and have no understanding of the subject in the real world.

[Miserlou]

Well, perhaps this is a lack of experience. But it often breeds arrogance.
If only they KNEW how little they knew, then they'd be a few steps ahead.

I once heard it expressed in this way,
"The problem with these fast trackers is that they have never been alone and scared in an aeroplane!"

You learn alot by frightening yourself.

[BOAC]

I agree with Tony, but a large part of the problem is that in the 'old days' such inexperience would fly with a grumpy old 'experienced' Captain and pick up the necessary. Today's 'grumpy young Captain' was him/herself a 250 hour tyro not that long ago and so the spiral starts. Miser has it right "The problem with these fast trackers is that they have never been alone and scared in an aeroplane!" and the mil/single-pilot air taxi route (where you can be) is now less common.

It all depends on 'acceptable risk', and I, like Tony, do not find it 'acceptable' to be in the back with such inexperience 'up front', while the accountants, managers and, of course, those paying the airfares, do. With the spread of the 'wonder-jet' that does it all for you anyway, it appears to be an acceptable risk to this group, whereas the 'dying breed' like TD, me and others just don't want to die that way.

Of course by using AF447 as an example, TD opens a far bigger can of worms - no-one on the flight deck there had '250 hours'..............

[Gretchenfrage]

no-one on the flight deck there had '250 hours'..............

Maybe not ,they however very much displayed the 250h syndrome.
Or I might rename it: The OM-A/B/C syndrome.

"Everything you have to know is in the book and everything you need to trust is the computer".

With such a credo you can put 250h bums in any seat and you definitely breed that "I know it all" arrogance.

They may well know it all ----- until the s#1t hits the fan. Then they revert to the computer, who has quite often already left the building........

I have to second TD: Brave new world.

[TonyDavis]

it was a bit shocking to read your post about new pilots coming from their training with fresh certificate yet not ready to really operate as a FO's in real life.

I am in a training business for 20 years now (not aviation) and I am observing declining ability of graduates from universities or even any school to take a job right after their completion. I've been involved into training in various part of world from Europe up to South America and this declining trend seems to exist everywhere.

I am an aviation enthusiast and I use examples from aviation a lot in my lectures and writings simply because it is still an area which is very practical and anything learned can be seen quickly in operation once you leave the apron.

Honestly, I expected that flight schools should be able to prepare trainees for the real world to the degree they can really do their job without any big delay.

My first question is:
What is your idea why it is so (was it better before), in other words - what is the root of this situation?

And another question:
What is done by airlines to overcome this? Do they have some additional training?

I would be grateful if you can answer this and possibly you can even quote this text in your thread if you think it would be beneficial for PPRuNers to read our discussion. I selected PM because I am not an aviation professional in the first place.

Looking forward to your answers,

Pavol (from Slovakia)
Dear Pavol,

I think the root cause of this is all down to the demon money.
I am not just looking back to the good old days when everything was better (LOL).

When I did my initial examinations the questions were written, not muti choice. This means the examiner has to know the subject as well and spends time reading and correcting the answer. To save cost and reduce manpower the Authority got rid of that and went to the American system of multi-choice, where you just learn the answer to the question (rote learning). This has recently been highlighted on the news here as one of the problems our school children are suffering. Also the pay for teachers is very low, so the general standard of teaching has fallen dramaticaly.

Some airlines spend the time and money to train properly but this is in a very high cost enviroment. When someone completes a type rating the trainer has very little time to teach basics.

The flight schools are highly cost driven trying to compete with eachother. If you just look at the cost of ATPL ground schools you will see that there is very little money there. The net result is very poor and low paid instructors with very little experience of the industry, hence they just read aloud from a book and dont understand the subject.

Another problem is that the syllabus is ancient and does not reflect the technology and requirements of todays world.

[GlueBall]

...But if you can correctly answer crap questions as these, you'll get your EUOPS/JAR license....! :eek:

Q2495 "For inbound procedures, how many copies of the required forms are to be delivered to the public authority in a state?"
A- 3 GEN dec; 3 cargo manifest; 2 simple stores list
B- 2 GEN dec; 3 cargo manifest; 2 simple stores list
C- 3 GEN dec; 3 cargo manifest; 3 simple stores list
D- 3 GEN dec; 2 cargo manifest; 2 simple stores list

Q2478 "The phases related to an aircraft in emergency or believed
in emergency are:"
A- uncertainty phase, alert phase, distress phase.
B- uncertainty phase, urgency phase,distress phase.
C- uncertainty phase, distress phase, urgency phase.
D- uncertainty phase, alert phase, distress phase and urgency phase.

[Bigmouth]

Or questions about grid navigation...

[Graham@IDC]

Now THIS is what I call an interesting start to a vital thread. Probable THE most important point raised on this forum for a long time.

I couldn't agree more with Tony.

[Pull what]

The poor standard of instructors is the first place to start looking at! I see two of our retired pilots, who both regularly demonstrated some of the worst CRM I have ever seen, are now MCC instructors!

[Schiller]

"Those that can, do. Those that cannot, teach."

[mad_jock]

Same here

And into that can't fly a DME arc

Can't trim an aircraft.

Have no foundation in the principles of flight.

And I don't think MPL will change anything because its the same schools with the same instructors which are putting out the current issue.

[Pull what]

"Those that can, do. Those that cannot, teach."

Close-"those who cannot post in the private flying or instructor forum".

[paco]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Just to make the point - ask the average student how they would find the QNH when landing halfway up a mountain in your country of choice. It's the application of the knowledge that counts.

[aterpster]

What does RHS mean in English?

[stepwilk]

Right-Hand Seat, I assume. Part of the fascination with acronyms.

[greybeard]

"Those that can, DO; Those that can't, Teach;, those that can't teach, CONSULT.

That's where the money is and the problem could lie.

The degredation of Training Standards, Instructor Knowlege, situational awareness vacuum in early exposure.

The worry is it is in all industries

:ugh:

[dood]

Newly qualified fATPL here.

The concept of flight schools has changed dramatically. They've become pilot factories in essence. The major lack of knowledge comes from the databanks available for the ATPL exams. It's just become another tick in the box process and the authorities have helped make it as easy as possible.

Me and a few of my class mates fortunately or unfortunately had not heard of the data bank until my last module so had to work incredibly hard to get through the exam even if it was multiple choice. I managed to do fairly well and get first time passes. But, it wasn't good enough. The students who I have to compete with have avg. ATPL scores of 98%! compared to my 89%. I wondered for a while how this was possible and couldn't figure it out. It turns out that a lot of the ATPL students don't actually learn the material they are provided. Can you imagine answering exam questions based on the size of the question and the size of the answer rather than the content. This is what's happening.

Flight exams are specifically selected routes that are practiced again and again without much deviation. Throw a random hold or diversion into the mix and you'll see what happens.

But, the truth of the matter is it's only the results the airline's see. So will they hire cadets like me with an 89% avg result and a partial in one of the flight tests on a new route or, 98% and first time passes in a flight test. I have studied EU-OPS, taken the time out to learn and intern in Safety Management and CRM, got a very aviation orientated degree and do a desk job just so I can afford to glide now and then.

The truth is I won't be selected for interview before the integrated guys & girls and I'll always be at the back of the pile because I didn't spend twice the money to train at the 'approved' training centres that have all the connections. It is as much the fault of the airlines as the authorities. Now with the cadet scheme's from BA, Monarch, EZY etc that use the 'approved' schools. My batch of pilots are over-looked entirely.

I should've just forked out my £80-90k + TR money just after my A-levels and gone through these 'approved' schools. I'd probably be flying a shiny A320 now for a £1000 a month. It's all about money, professionalism is out the window.

[RAT 5]

Guys, this has much deeper and more disturbing ramifications. I wont get into the debate about the dilution of training; that has been hashed for years. Assuming it is correct to say that overall aviation training has been diluted, i.e. the basic foundations are more flimsy, less sturdy, then consider that the command requirement is now commonly 3000hrs, where as it was 5000hrs not so very long ago. In legacy airlines it is usually a function of time, often >10years, and perhaps 3 different types and regions of operation. Now in new rapidly expanding companies command can be had after 4 years, and in only 1 company and 1 type. It could be argued that therefore you should be intimate with your a/c, your area and company SOP's. If you are smart and the SOP's are solid, the a/c well maintained and the network in/out of large well equipped airports, a new captain will likely learn and gain confidence fast. A/c are more reliable, but mother nature is not, and the young expanding airlines operate into a vast spectrum of airports with a differing quality of facilities. An ILS into a radar airport is usually the same, but some middle of now-where airfields need a little more nouse. It is a point for discussion that the dilution of training is not just at entry level, but continues up into entry to command. With often less total cockpit experience than just a captain used to have, and, with a much more simple basic grounding it could be argued that many crews are on the back of the drag curve for their first few years. No doubt it is money driven. Answer? I have no quick one other than to restore the basic command criteria of a few more years under the wing of experience, rather than just trust the robotic trained monkey SOP 'anorak', but who sadly might not understand the why's & wherefore's behind those SOP's.

[paco]

Sadly, dood that's the way of the world these days :( . It's the same hurdle as trying for a job against those with padded logbooks, who get the jobs above more honest people. Not sure what one can do about it except hope for enlightened interviewers, but if it's in the hands of human remains, don't hold out much hope.

[RichardH]

Great post. Fully agree with all comments to date. I notice that all us who have been around a bit are saying the same thing!

Alarming lack of under-pinning knowledge in some cases. Had a UK student who didn't even know where Italy was, others need a calculator to work out 5% of 10,000 kg.

Regretfully I believe this is a reflection on the league table education system, whereby secondary schools can select an easier examination board so their results look better. The only people this is actually failing are the poor students who when entering the real world have a culture shock.

On the good side, there are some very capable & able students coming through the system who actually do want to know their stuff not just remembering answer C. Hopefully they will work their way up into positions that count and start asking some serious questions about the current "system".

[Machinbird]

Strictly for comparison, at 265 hours total military flight time, I completed the training command requirements and received my USN Wings. This training was the product of a massive training organization. All but 20 hours were in jet aircraft.

100% of the logged time was in actual flight. During that time, I checked out in 3 different aircraft types, carrier qualified in two of them, flew single pilot IFR, multi-aircraft formation, low level navigation, air to air gunnery and combat, bombing, and strafing. I also witnessed one aircraft spin in-but that wasn't supposed to be part of the syllabus :}.

Ground school was thorough and fully supported the syllabus. Despite the hurry up, then wait pace of training necessitated by a war-time environment, it took 14 months to complete the syllabus. As I recall, the value of the training in then dollars was about $250,000 (~1965).

When you consider that many of the things we did with the aircraft were not applicable to transport flying, the 250 hour point to begin flying commercially is of itself not unreasonable. What is likely missing from the current equation is the quality of instruction.

Droning along does not create skills. Adversity and challenge do.

[paco]

Machinbird - you've got it about right. The problem is that many 200 hour pilots do not reach even that level mentally. Where I would start is with the PPL training. A good foundation at that stage does wonders for later life, and there's not that much difference between the PPL and CPL anyway (maybe turbines engines and a couple of other bits). If the instructors were given the incentive to do ground school.........

[pontifex]

I was an MCC instructor at two different units from 2000 to 2007 having devised and written the package for the latter one. In my experience of that period the standard of students was wildly variable. By and large it depended on where the candidate gained his/her ATPL. Of course that is a generalisation, but I saw enough examples to make the comment valid. Some were so bad that I could not believe that the student had really passed an IRT. To be honest I sometimes suspected dirty work at the crossroads. On the other hand, some were so good that I was in awe of their ability and capability to absorb information. I would have had no qualms with them going straight into the RHS of any Airbus (yes I have flown both B and A) So I have to concur with the opinion that the problem lies with the standard of instruction with finances as the root cause. Our government's insistence on charging VAT on training and related costs, the lack of sponsorship for students and, lastly, poor instructors remuneration are combining to create a "perfect storm". Oh dear! What is the solution. I don't know.

[Sirijus]

Maybe if there was less attention to unimportant in the real world but important for the exam stuff, we could concentrate more on the serious things - navigating, calculating and understanding performance, procedures, etc. I don't really care about what wind is blowing in Madagascar every three years on May the 2nd in the evening, or how to write 36 in binary system. Instead of learning that, let me give more attention to operational stuff and I will satisfy my future employer!

Just my 2 cents

[mad_jock]

I used to think the same about some of the met stuff.

Then I had to land in Madagascar on May the 2nd

The monsoon stuff I didn't believe was much use, now planning a ferry flight in a couple of months time it allows me to choose a suitable route without killer head winds.

Alot of the stuff use isn't apparent when you learn it but in the future it is.

[Nick 1]

In my opinion , the magics words are "selection" and "training".
As the time (or the money) to train a pilot in an airliner is the same , is better to choose the right material to have the better product.
Today selection as changed in money , so company doesn't want to pay for instructors , screening and training.
Is possible to join a RHS almost without a real selection.
I think that , if there is the possibility that you 'll be discharged along the way
( like in military training ) you are moore keen to listen and study.

[maxed-out]

TonyDavis

It works both ways I'm afraid. Some MCC instructors do not belong anyware near a sim; nevermind an aircraft. I did my MCC with a well known provider in the South and let me tell you, the instructor my partner and I had was a grumpy old retired f@rt. Kept on refering to the good old days when the first officer had his knuckels broken if he didn't do something to his taste. Not something you say to a low timer during an MCC course, is it?

Comments about making dark skinned first officers wear gloves to track their hand movements were also inappropriate.!!!!

Food for thought isn't it?

[pudoc]

I think some of it comes down to the student as well.

I've seen plenty of people who I'm training with atm who's frame of mind is to do just enough and think anything more is crazy.

It seems to me it takes nothing special to be a pilot, just a lot of money. It takes a lot of effort and the right attitude to be a good pilot though.

I'm young and still doing my training so could somebody tell me what it was like to get trained say 20 years ago? Could anyone with cash just be a pilot or was there more of a 'want to do my best' attitude as people fought for sponsorship? If the later, then I can see how the whole money thing has left to the results described above. Not that I've seen any of it myself for obvious reasons.

What I describe above isn't most students where I'm at, just a good few.

Although the syllabus doesn't help. I couldn't care less about what materials make up the neurons in my spine. Don't see how this made its way into human performance. Maybe it should just be called biology??

I say bring in oral exams like in the US. That's where you can really see who has a real understanding. Can't learn any answers for that.

[TonyDavis]

Well it seems I have opened up an interesting post.

I hope that the training industry is taking note and also the CAA and EASA.

I really do believe we are building a problem for the future.

The MPL is the first good look at the modern training world, however it is not working in Europe or probably the US where most trainee pilots are self sponsored. We really do need to look at the traditional syllabus as well.

As it stands, most of the existing syllabus is based around 1940's to 1950's applications with bits bolted on to try to bring it up to date. It needs a radical, intelligent overhaul.

Yes there are dedicated students in the present system who do go the extra mile, but there are also a lot who tend to do the absolute minmum.

Posts in this forum show that there are a large number who just want to know the answer and are not interested in the why's and wherefore's.

I think one good start is to bring in a new module on operating procedures and take students through an actual flight to highlight the areas where knowledge is needed, however this maybe too difficult as it could open another can of worms. MCC training does show this up, but it is a very short course and where do you draw the line when you have to teach someone to fly a SID or STAR and start delving into performance, jet engine operation, high altitude flight, Mach numbers and the list goes on and on.

Then there is the issue of flight managment and cognitive functions. I have developed some quick Aide Memoir's but it really needs more time and should not be done in an expensive simulator.

I dont think for one moment that any of these discussions will lead to anything meaningful, but at least a few years from now I will be able to say 'I told you so' LOL :=

[Pull what]

A great start would be to teach situational awareness on the PPL!

[Dan the weegie]

Yes there are dedicated students in the present system who do go the extra mile, but there are also a lot who tend to do the absolute minmum.

And that's where the problem is, the airlines don't bother to figure out who those people are, they just pick the people that meet the numbers, or get them the best deal on sim time with the relevant integrated provider.

So, get ticks in the box, get the numbers and pay for your type rating and you have as much chance of landing a job as a pilot who slogged their way through, learning the material getting worse ATPL results because they didn't blast the question bank and loves it so much that he puts the effort it to deliver a good performance buys a little ****heap plane, maintains it, puts a couple of hundred hours on it learning plenty about handling, wind, maintenance, control surfaces etc.
The exams are irrelevant, they always will be. It's the quality of the people and on the face of it, that's being ignored.

You might even sneer and say but what's all that got to do with SIDs, STARs, SOPs, and Jets? Perhaps nothing but that would mean we're back at square one.

Pull What, you can't teach situational awareness on the PPL, they're 100% maxxed on the basics. It's possible to try and in the cases of the really good students you can work them hard on it but really it's something that comes after a couple of hundred hours.

[fwjc]

TD I think I agree with much of what you say. Just finished the theoretical part, learning the subject and learning the exam questions and answers are two different ball games.

I think there's a bigger problem here though over and above the theoretical material, which I'm sure at least some will stand us in good stead in the future as m-j says.

The fact is that factory pilots have never stretched their aviation envelope in the same way that GA pilot self-improvers have done. They've never gone off ill prepared and regretted it, they've never had to make a real captain's decision about whether to divert under pressure. They've never really learned what's making those wings stay up in the air, besides money, and how to fix it when the bernoullis are no longer situated in the preferred position.
They've never learned to listen to an aeroplane, cos they'll tell you when something's not right. The coupling may not be the same in a big jet, but once the Real Principles of Flight are in-built, that pilot has half a chance of being ahead of a situation rather than behind it. As someone said, being scared at least once in an aeroplane is a great humbler and teaches a whole lot.

Dood, with you too. People who might well be a whole lot better are overlooked on the back of numbers, and that is plain wrong.

[TonyDavis]

Reading through the posts on this subject, I find it interesting that most of the comments agree that there is a problem, but nobody seems to know what to do about it or do not really care. I find it interesting that out of the hundreds of trainee pilots that read these forums, not one has asked how he/she can improve his/herself.

I have an idea to set up a virtual flight, detailing all of the areas where knowledge is required, this will show trainees the areas where they are weak and can concentrate on putting it right. The materials for learning are out there, it only has to be pointed out where to look and what is important and what is bulls**t.

Questions such as :
Q2495 "For inbound procedures, how many copies of the required forms are to be delivered to the public authority in a state?"
A- 3 GEN dec; 3 cargo manifest; 2 simple stores list
B- 2 GEN dec; 3 cargo manifest; 2 simple stores list
C- 3 GEN dec; 3 cargo manifest; 3 simple stores list
D- 3 GEN dec; 2 cargo manifest; 2 simple stores list

Q2478 "The phases related to an aircraft in emergency or believed
in emergency are:"
A- uncertainty phase, alert phase, distress phase.
B- uncertainty phase, urgency phase,distress phase.
C- uncertainty phase, distress phase, urgency phase.
D- uncertainty phase, alert phase, distress phase and urgency phase.

Have no relevance whatsoever in the real world and quite honestly who cares :yuk:

The problem lies in that the student is not equipped to sort out the wheat from the chafe, nor it appears are many instructors.

It was said to me many years ago by a CAA examiner that the reason these type of questions are used is a filter system to stop everyman and his dog getting a pilot's licence. I do not disagree with that approach, the problem now is that with multi-choice and some cash, everyman and his dog can pass this filter.

With regard to the 2 questions above, I would probably fail them. Did that make me a poor pilot ? Maybe I was. :)

[mad_jock]

I think alot of the porblems is because most of the knowledge thats prescribed content is decided by none pilots.

The relevance to day to day ops or emergency ops is minimal.

Then you also get the split between the TP's and the swept wing jets. What us props need to know and watch out for isn't relevent to the jets and also the other way round. There is of course a huge chunk in the middle which we both need.

[TonyDavis]

I would like to make it very clear that I am not advertising my services or soliciting for work. I have used pprune in the past for advertising when I set up the MCC at European Skybus and that advert is still running.

I agree with you mad jock and there is a need for different material depending on air taxi, turbprop and jet operations. Most of my MCC students have been aiming for jet operations although a significant number end up on turboprops. There is as you say a huge chunk of required knowledge which is applicable to all operations.

[zondaracer]

Here is an idea, feel free to shoot it down.

Why don't the authorities agree I set a higher experience requirement to pilot a commercial aircraft over 19 passengers? Say.... 700hrs or 1500hrs TT.

This will require most to get experience in GA. Of course there will be those who go elsewhere to do P2F, but 1500 is a pretty high barrier. As we all know, there isn't enough GA to go around in Europe, so this is going to reduce the pool of qualified pilots to the airlines. Those thinking of getting into aviation but only want to go straight into a jet will be put off by having to do this, as the prospect of going into a 737 or 320 at 250hrs goes away. This is also going to prevent those who have a fresh CPL/IR from doing the bare minimum to keep current year after year hoping to land a jet job with their minimum hours. They will have to get more ezperiece like everyone else, which is a good thing in my opinion. Flying is a perishable skill after all.

Here are the negatives...

It will have a negative impact on the flight training industry
The airlines will be against the idea
Those unwilling or unable to access GA will complain that it is unfair, but who said life is fair?

Anyhow, it would not be much unlike the new rule being imposed by the FAA.