Cadets over Experience ? please explain

[PressTheTit]

I pose this genuine question to hopefully gain an understanding of the reasons why airlines allegedly prefer CAE/CTC/FTE cadets over Modular/FI's/MEP operators etc etc...

From my point of view which is totally bias as im of the latter stable, I can't understand the rational behind this trend. If indeed this is the case.

Is there an argument that more experienced modulars/FI's etc have higher pay expectations initially ? This is certainly not the case for me or other like candidates I know.

Do the airlines not recognise potentially 1000's hrs of flight time over many years with empty bags of luck and full bags of experience as relevant ?

I'm not nieve enough to realise there are some ££££££ to be made by favouring cadets, but how ?

IMHO 200hrs ish is not enough of a grounding before moving exclusively to a benign IFR environment for the rest of your career. Slightly militant but no wonder when things go wrong there seems to be a lack of ideas on the flight deck.

Is there a percieved issue of molding an experienced pilot into company sop's ethos ?

If retention of captains is an issue in some airlines then why do they not employ more aviation experienced FOs that could achieve captaincy quicker ?

I could go on but you get the idea,

I'm new to the market and again this is a genuine question not designed to target anyone but simply to understand what the reasoning is.

Replies welcome from all :ok:

[stn]

From my point of view which is totally bias as im of the latter stable, I can't understand the rational behind this trend. If indeed this is the case.
This is the case and in a way has always been - each airline has set their own rules how to get the best people to work for their company. For example lufthansa has their own flight school, as well as KLM. They can select the applicants they want and follow their progress since the first day of ground school. They know what they get.

I've been looking for (any flying) work for better part of a year now, but so far I haven't landed even a single interview so I can kind of understand your frustration. However one has to remember that the airlines do not own anything to you or me, it's entirely up to them. Even more so in the current climate as for an example Qatar had 2000 applications in two days for a SO position.

Is there an argument that more experienced modulars/FI's etc have higher pay expectations initially ? This is certainly not the case for me or other like candidates I know.
No, I don't think this has anything to do with salary or T&C's.

IMHO 200hrs ish is not enough of a grounding before moving exclusively to a benign IFR environment for the rest of your career. Slightly militant but no wonder when things go wrong there seems to be a lack of ideas on the flight deck.
This has happened with legacy carriers for decades when they had their own cadets and no issues have arisen from this.

[PressTheTit]

Stn, thanks for the reply. Attached below the US standpoint. They have obviously identified an issue. Are things that different over here ?

The Final Rule

Directed by Congress, the Airline Safety and FAA Extension Act of 2010 called for increased minimum requirements for airline first officers. The new rule mandates that airline first officers hold an air transport pilot (ATP) certificate or the new “restricted ATP.”

An ATP certificate requires, among many other qualifications, that the pilot be at least 23 years old and have logged at least 1,500 hours of flight time.

The “restricted ATP” requires pilots to be at least 21 years old with

750 flight hours if they are military-trained and qualified,
1,000 flight hours if trained in a four-year college or university-accredited aviation training program leading to a bachelor’s degree, or
1,250 flight hours if trained in a two-year college aviation program leading to an associate’s degree.
Pilots who obtain their certificates and ratings via non-structured general aviation flight training can qualify for the restricted ATP at age 21 with 1,500 hours of flight time.

The new rule also requires, per ALPA’s recommendation, that first officers be “type rated” in the aircraft they fly in airline service—i.e., receive special training and testing on operation of that specific aircraft type.

To upgrade to captain, an airline copilot must log at least 1,000 hours of flight time as an airline copilot, as pilot in command (PIC) in certain small and charter airline or commercial general aviation operations, or any combination of these situations. The flight experience does not have to be obtained at the pilot’s current airline.

Military PIC time (as much as 500 hours) in a multi-engine, turbine-powered, fixed-wing airplane in an operation requiring more than one pilot may also be credited towards the 1,000 hours.

At ALPA’s urging, the FAA has not changed the type of medical certification required for airline first officers—they will still be required to hold at least a second class FAA airman

[RWY_31R]

Sadly, we as pilots have to swallow this bitter, sobering pill of reality.

No matter what school or under what system or what country you achieved your flight training and subsequent piston engine experience, it still comes down to this;

The airlines owe us nothing, the industry owes us nothing and it takes more than being perceived to be the better candidate (based on experience or training) that will land you a job.

It's down to being in the right place at the right time, saying the right things at the right time, meeting the right people and connecting with the airline that wants to take a chance on you. In other words, hard work, a determined attitude and LUCK! LOTS OF LUCK! All current airline pilots got lucky to one extent.

This career was a big gamble when we all started training, and it still is a big gamble when you're in the job hunt. Many CPL's will never make it to the airlines!

You just have to enjoy what ever flying you do in the mean time. So even if you never make it into a jetliner, atleast you can look back at your flying career and be proud you did something, millions around the world cant do! Fly an airplane.

Airline recruitment may seem very unfair (an arguably it is in some quarters), but being in such an over subscribed industry, its no surprise jobs are becoming harder and harder to come by.

If an airline's chief pilot/HR team like you, they'll hire you. But when they are dealing with thousands of applicants for just a handful of positions, some good people will get the chop. Is that fair?? well....is life fair?

Happy flying people, regardless of what you fly :ok:

[Groundloop]

That ruling by Congress was a knee-jerk reaction to the Colgan incident. And the irony is that both Colgan pilots had well over the minimum requirements of the new rule.

[OhNoCB]

I have limited experience but it seems a very rough rule is that the less strict the company SOPs are, the more they tend to value experience. Probably because their judgement is called on more often.

When I was looking for a job I ran into lots of smaller operators who really wanted lots of experience, but I also spoke with a few training bods in bigger operators (airlines etc) who preferred having the 'blank canvas' cadet to work with.

I was in the middle (sort of) with around 6-700 hours and no type rating, meaning I wasn't a blank canvas to work with but wasn't experienced either.

For what it's worth, I think the operators dismissing experience tends to break down when you have experience on type. That always seems to be quite a valuable thing to them.

[calculer]

Cadets are formatted, they are young, smart, they are not married and have no kids, they will be more concentrated on the flying and will follow all procedures when older folks will have a personal idea on how to do things, have wifes and kids, they will not be formatted as well and they will not follow the sometimes arbitrary procedures as well
The cadets will get some experience fast anyway and captains are here to help them learn the job, they will figure everything soon enough and end up being excellent pilots even if they are just cadets at first

[PressTheTit]

Calculer, a very interesting POV and very much highlights my point.

Well done :ok:

[Superpilot]

The popular thought amongst the expired old relics from that bygone era of “self-improvers” (what’s that I hear most of you ask?) who are still running the show is that 1.) Integrated flight training schools provide a flight training regime that is better suited to developing an Airline Pilot. 2.) Integrated flight training schools have a selection process that weeds out the undesirables.

It would appear that Modular schools apparently either deliberately or otherwise teach their students in a way that does not make them as good Airline Pilots and the airline industry really does not care if you’re not rich enough, stupid enough or desperate enough (delete as appropriate) to effectively pay a €50k premium to be “selected”. Anyway, lets ignore the fact that CTC is run mostly by ex-EasyJet management and that the old Hamble club plays a part in the cosy relationship between OAA and BA.

[PressTheTit]

Thanks all for your posts so far,

And Calculer, you do have a point. I can't tell you how many times I've disregarded procedures and just randomly started cutting my own detail, inadvertently entering inverted flat spins as soon as thought of my wife or kids enter my head.

Is it now a pre requisite to become a monk before undertaking integrated training to prevent the unthinkable senario of a family ?

I think blank canvas is a very appropriate term :D

[maxed-out]

Calculer,

What utter rubbish you speak. I have had the privilege of meeting older pilots who started flying pretty late in life. All self improver and some are skippers in UK airlines.

Yes, I nearly flipped the Caravan last week at FL130 when the jumpers were just about to get out due to me thinking of my wife and kid.

[INeedTheFull90]

It has nothing to do with experienced guys being more difficult to train or being used to another operators' SOP. The cadet-airline-FTO racket is all to do with back handlers, gentlmens agreements and commission.

[Holyjoe]

Cadet programs are run with the company SOPs underpinning everything from pretty much the start. Cadets have no bad habits to unlearn and all they will know is what their prospective employer wants/needs them to know. BA cadets are of varied ages/marital status/gender but the course they take will be common to all.

The MPL is the one we all need to watch. Airlines are watching with interest the success that airlines currently involved in this course are experiencing. It was not without its problems initially, but it is definitely a course that is currently making training departments very happy. Flying schools without ties to an airline could see themselves in big trouble if the MPL becomes more popular.

Its hard out there trying to get your first job and harder to move on from your first job if you don't have the right type rating. Trying to feed a family on a £1600 a month basic on a Regional carrier is not sustainable either.

The industry has evolved and training has moved on..us "self-improvers" are a dying breed. Good luck to all trying to get your first break. Hopefully the likes of Flybe will be a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel.

[Bealzebub]

Airlines have never been particularly interested in 250 hour "self improvers". Never!

Why is that? The answer is simple, it is because 250 hour CPL "self improvers" never existed until the advent of JAA licence harmonisation.

There were always a small number of 250 hour cadet pilots that were recruited in to the handful of airlines with cadet programmes, but they were almost always from "approved" integrated training schools that by and large followed the same format as todays evolved "approved schools," those being the major players in supplying full time integrated graduates to those airlines with cadet programmes. Yesterdays Hamble (an in house BOAC/BEA/BA college) and Oxford, Perth etc. evolved into todays Oxford, FTE and CTC.

The old self improver route meant acquiring at least 700 hours (outside of one of these integrated "approved" programmes,) for the issue of a CPL/IR. Even then, that level of experience was unlikely to find an invitation to interview letter landing on your doormat. Most of the airlines looked for candidates with at least 2000 hours and for the jet operators usually around 500 hours of turbine experience. The successful "self improvers" often amassed this through a variety of "stepping stone" jobs, such as flight instruction (which could be remunerated in those days with a PPL!), Air taxi, Aerial work, Third and Second tier turboprop operators, etc. In that respect the airlines requirements have generally changed little.

The reduction in experience levels to 250 hours was done to bring the UK and a few other countries into line with other ICAO signatory nations and other supranational authorities. Indeed the UK became a signatory to one such supranational authority (the then JAA now EASA), and hence the need for change. Previous sources of remunerated employment such as flight instruction were now subject to a CPL requirement, and hence the experience level for the issue of the CPL was reduced to 250 hours to bring the requirements into line with those existing in the USA and most of the rest of the world.

The rapid expansion of at least one lo-co airline in Europe also coincided broadly with these changes. That airline sought co-pilot applications within the strict letter of the law to anybody with a CPL/IR and the necessary application fee. This seemed to generate a popular perception (that persists to this day) that 250 hours and a CPL/IR was the golden ticket to the right seat of jet airliner. Unfortunately it wasn't! It never had been, and the fact that the new requirements slashed the basic flying hour requirements by two thirds, only served to open the floodgates to what was nearly always an overflowing reservoir.

This relative explosion of new hopefuls clutching a CPL/IR, and the general industry wide reduction of turboprop opportunities, as well as an increasing lack of general aviation openings, resulted in the situation you see now. When you then add on the global economic cycles, the changes in industry requirements, and the deluge of swimmers looking for any employment rock to cling on to, the normal progression avenues for the self improver simply became hopelessly constricted.

Those schools that evolved from the old "approved" schools expanded their cadet programmes in association with more and more airlines. Those airlines that continued to seek "experienced" (military and civil pilots) throughout a prolonged economic downturn continued to expect experience levels at pretty much the same benchmark that they had always done.

The one sector of the marketplace that was squeezed out was the new and vastly expanded low hour "self improver." The first tier airlines always (albeit in smaller numbers) took their cadets from the big Three "approved schools." They also recruited experienced civil pilots from the "stepping stone" operators, and they took experienced ex-military career changers.

Over the last 10-15 years, coupled with a very long and severe economic recession, there also occurred global regulatory changes that raised pilots retirement ages from 55 to 60 and then 65. This took pressure off airlines for an entire decade as they experienced far fewer retirements than they normally might, and allowed them to expand their cadet programmes to take up the shortfall. The result of this was an evolution of the industrial landscape, such that now the cadet programmes have also served to squeeze a good deal of the middle ground "experienced pilot" recruitment. That squeeze manifested itself as far less opportunity, and vastly reduced T&C's (in many cases) for those same experienced career movers.

The industry has seismically shifted over the last 20 years from a highly regulated and restricted one, to one where "low cost" is the name of the game. The secret is in the name. Low cost means low input costs wherever you can control those costs, right through to low prices for the end consumer. The writing has been on the wall for quite a long time now. You can explain the real time history on here until you are blue in the face, but for those adversely affected, or those who failed to appreciate the general realities, or continue to stick their head in the sand or their fingers in their ears, it simply won't make a jot of difference. To succeed in an evolving environment, it is usually necessary to evolve with it. That is more difficult when you have already rolled the dice!

[Groundloop]

The cadet-airline-FTO racket is all to do with back handlers, gentlmens agreements and commission.

A commonly trotted-out piece of rubbish. Have you the evidence to back up your claim, then?:ugh:

[NVIS]

Until the flow of wet behind the ears cadets with deep pockets dries up there will be no end in sight! God forbid that a serious accident is attributed to the current employment MO.

[PressTheTit]

OK, thanks to all. I'm building a clearer picture of the situation.

So, pros of a cadet are youth, fresh faced, blank canvas ready to be moulded by the airline, rich, no undesirables, smart, trained specifically for the role etc ctc etc.:ok:

Cons, very limited hands on flying with 0 experience to fall back on even when they have 5000 hrs heavy IFR time, almost a total lack of charecter building life experience.:=

To be fair I invite a cadet to give the pros and cons of a modular/fi/ex mil

Again I have no issues with cadets or academies but its disturbing to learn of potentially unhealthy relationships between airlines and academies. eg latest orange airline recruitment for NTR. Is this even legal to specify schools ? I would hope the standardisation would be the licence and rating held not what school attended. :ugh:

[G-F0RC3]

So, pros of a cadet are youth, fresh faced, blank canvas ready to be moulded by the airline, rich, no undesirables, smart, trained specifically for the role etc ctc etc.

Cons, very limited hands on flying with 0 experience to fall back on even when they have 5000 hrs heavy IFR time, almost a total lack of charecter building life experience.

I really don't think it's the dichotomy that you are suggesting. The airline training programmes I've seen all value life experience; all suggest flying experience is advantageous; and all take people from a variety of age groups and backgrounds - including parents with young kids.

Also, in what way does having 5000 hrs heavy IFR time constitute zero experience? Of course a lot of the flying is done by autopilot, but a lot of it is hand-flown too. On top of that there are regular simulator proficiency checks where real emergencies can be practised (ironically something you can't do to the same extent in a C152 or PA38).

[pilotchute]

The cadet "blank canvass" myth.

Blank they are but that isn't the reason. The big schools pump out a product of which the Locos have no input into training. If the Locos were so interested the schools would be tailoring the training to the airline they claim to be supplying.

The old "trained how we want them" went out the window when airlines closed their flying schools.

Cadets are preferred because they pay for everything and don't complain. They don't say anything when sent to the crappiest base in the network when there are vacancies in the base down the road from where they live.

All airlines in Europe are desperately cutting costs. If if was cheaper to hire experience they would. One Loco has started to reap what it sows though. There is such an exodus the cadet training machine can't cope so they opened the gates to non cadets. Problem is it's only open to guys with jet multi crew time already. Sorry FI's, nothing for you.

[rogerg]

Blank they are but that isn't the reason. The big schools pump out a product of which the Locos have no input into training. If the Locos were so interested the schools would be tailoring the training to the airline they claim to be supplying


Some do, its called MPL




Sorry cant get the quote button to work.

[Twinotterguy]

Here is another POv, many airlines struggles to find pilots especially when the government implies strict rules that a less experienced pilot should be a local national. Thus airlines have no choice but to train cadets to meet this requirement.

Remember not all cadets pay for their training, I was a cadet in my airline several years ago and the airline sponsored the whole course including type ratings, Accomodation with allowance. I did not had to re pay a single cent , all I had to do is work for a specific time to complete the contract but have to pay only if I decide to leave the airline. For over 20 years my airline has been doing this and they had no major problem with these cadets when they get on to the jets.

It's very easy to integrate a cadet into the culture of the airline, they are thought the SOPs, specific trainings and company policies and rules since day one. Airlines tailors the schools programme for their advantage thus getting the people they expect.

[pilotchute]

Your missing the point. You just said the airline paid for everything so the airline would make sure that at every stage the product was what they wanted. Locos don't want to invest in people just exploit people.

[rogerg]

You need to be more specific. Some locos sponsor the cadet giving him a job at the end and then the money is repaid from salary. Not so good as the "old days" but then what is!

[pilotchute]

Roger you will have to tell me who these Locos are who pay for training then take it back with salary deduction. I've never heard of one.

[rogerg]

Wrong wording, they sponsor the loan and as the repayments are taken out of the salary, its as "free" as you can get.
I think that easy do this kind of system for the MPL.

[pilotchute]

Is this the easy that pay you less than 1500 pounds a month in the first year on this sponsored scheme?

I think you will find easy just tell the bank your good for the money. They don't help you pay it.

[P40Warhawk]

Lufthansa Flight Training.

There LH is paying for you and you pay back part of it. They deduct it from your salary when you started to work in one of the LH airlines.

[pilotchute]

P40,

This discussion is leaning towards the loco cadet hiring model. Sure there are 1 or 2 legacy carriers left who have true cadet schemes in place but they are almost all in the ME or East Asia.

LH is about the only European legacy carrier that requires no money up front for training. If I am wrong can someone please elaborate.

[pull-up-terrain]

Someone correct be if I'm wrong, but in Germany, don't they have workplace laws which make it illegal for employers to make employees pay for training? That's why Lufthansa has a cadetship where the cadet doesn't pay.

[P40Warhawk]

If that was the Law, then Germania is doing very Illegal business.
There you can only get RHS position if you pay for your Rating + LT. Otherwise, NO chance to get in. :yuk:

[Cliff Secord]

You missed one of the cons of cadets "pressthetit", nothing to do with safety. The cadet system is driving down terms. Is like Gold. It's valuable because it's desirable, there's only so much and it's hard to get. Pilots are diserable because (for the moment) airlines need them. Only there's no shortage of supply, nothing to force airlines to pick the high caret gold so they go for the cheap stuff.

It makes me laugh this cadet term. It gets bandied around like they're Nasa's answer to flight safety. Its basically a big hoodwink. A proper cadet used to be someone the airline paid to train. It cost them big and because of this very few airlines soley used cadets

These CTC/OAA entrants aren't cadets at all. They're no-experienced pilots being channelled into top playing airlines such as Thomson whilst experienced employees can't get a look in.

The smoke and mirrors trick works; the label of "cadet" somehow softens the blow and performs a "pepper's ghost" like trick on obvservers making it less starkly obvious what they're up to. We then end up on pprune having misguided discussions about safety when the glaringly obvious thing should be it's all about money.

They're not cadets. Licenced, no experience available cheap pilots. As Bealzebub says. It is the way it is. Forget whether they're safe or not be more worried about what kind of a crap job this'll be in 10 years with all the available channels to shortcut a former career "path".

It's hard to roll with the punches and adapt when you've been flying years and find yourself shut out of your own country. There's not a lot one can actually do, short of burning log books and trying to join a cadet scheme.

[Luke SkyToddler]

Something you guys would do well to remember is that cadets don't really exist outside your little bubble of Britain / Europe, because of your unique situation of not having enough GA or military pilots to meet the airline recruitment demand. Try and explain to a chief pilot in the USA that 250 "integrated" hours and B737 rating, is actually a better recruitment proposition than that 5000 hour caravan pilot or ex mil guy, and watch him roll on the floor laughing.

Cadets are a 100% cultural thing, they are acceptable in Europe but they are completely not in many other countries. The US government has now taken legal steps to ensure that the "250 hour airline pilot" nonsense doesn't get a chance to take root in their country. They are not the only country looking at this kind of legislation.

Sure there are a handful of cadet schemes in the majors of Asia and the mid east but they are almost invariably politically motivated "nationalization" programs and they are restricted to citizens of the country concerned. When the same airlines go to hire expats - guess what - they normally specify many thousands of hours total time and hundreds on type.

My gut feeling is that the world is only one major crash away from stamping down big time on this cadet culture that's become so massive in the last 10-15 years. They've been very lucky so far, but the day will come when a Boeing or 'bus is involved in major fatalities with a 250 hour kid in the driver's seat, and all hell will break loose in the media. Look at Colgan, that was only an ATR crash and it was sufficient to change the laws in the US.

Don't think that the same thing won't happen in Europe extremely quickly, when that fateful day comes - look how quickly they changed the "sensible" airport security legislation, to this daft and draconian foolishness we have now, all because a few politicians were under pressure to reassure the public about "safety" after a high profile terrorist bust. It happened virtually overnight.

In short, don't get too smug about the superiorities of being a "blank canvas" no family, no baggage, no life experience, no :mad:ing clue about anything other than what CTC/OAA shovelled into your precious little 18 year old empty head. One day you might find yourself back on the breadline wondering how you'll get those 1500 hours you need, and nobody will touch you for a GA / FI job because your "integrated" skill set doesn't match their needs.

[rogerg]

your precious little 18 year old empty head


You spoilt your argument by being unpleasant. There are plenty of integrated students who have "life experience" prior to starting flying training.

[Luke SkyToddler]

Fair call roger but I was just being sarcastic at the expense of

Cadets are formatted, they are young, smart, they are not married and have no kids, they will be more concentrated on the flying and will follow all procedures when older folks will have a personal idea on how to do things, have wifes and kids, they will not be formatted as well and they will not follow the sometimes arbitrary procedures as well

which comes very close to winning the trophy, for the biggest steaming pile of horse :mad: I've read on these forums in 15 years. The guy is basically saying that he thinks being clueless and having no life experience let alone flying experience, is a good thing.

[rogerg]

Cadets are formatted, they are young, smart, they are not married and have no kids, they will be more concentrated on the flying and will follow all procedures when older folks will have a personal idea on how to do things, have wifes and kids, they will not be formatted as well and they will not follow the sometimes arbitrary procedures as well


That BS as well. Some have all the things including the wife and kids, you can't generalize. They are all different.

[Cliff Secord]

I'll level with you. This talk of zero experienced Pilots being a safety risk is a slight red herring. In the UK! I fly in the far east, no amount of eagerness, SOP sponge like abilities or superhuman blank canvas qualities will help you. Out in the big bad world flying out of Afrique, Far East, the sub continent, maybe in wide bodied aircraft that bite, poor ATC, huge terrain and crap CRM cultures you need that big pot of experience. You'll find SOPs and expectations of ATC/weather will leave you wanting. The most experienced are truly then worth their weight. Brand new 200 hour Pilots in the UK with no exposure to such Worldly operations can flatter their egos in the playpen of the UK/mainland Euroland because it's so cosseted and relatively safe. Perfect environment for SOP quoting and little requirement for true outside the box thinking and it's arguable they can get away with it in this environment as its not really needed.

Back to my main point. Every time we harp on about safety we're dodging the real meat of the issue. It's destroying the career, for everyone.

[G-F0RC3]

My gut feeling is that the world is only one major crash away from stamping down big time on this cadet culture that's become so massive in the last 10-15 years. They've been very lucky so far, but the day will come when a Boeing or 'bus is involved in major fatalities with a 250 hour kid in the driver's seat, and all hell will break loose in the media. Look at Colgan, that was only an ATR crash and it was sufficient to change the laws in the US.

By this logic, why make 1500 hours the cut-off? Why not 2000? Or 5000? There must be a cut-off after which piloting ability ceases to noticeably improve with increasing hours.

The fact that a pilot has 250 hours instead of 1500 is very unlikely to be a factor in an air accident; and even more unlikely to be the only factor. While increasing experience is definitely a good thing, there are many examples of it introducing complacency that has subsequently resulted in serious accidents. So - rather than plucking arbitrary numbers out of thin air - let's look at the facts and conclude on that basis. And the facts suggest that these "250 hour kids" are very capable of handling the airliners they are fully qualified to fly. And, where they aren't; it's in almost all cases not because they only have 250 hours of experience, but because they were never cut out for it in the first place.

[Cliff Secord]

G-F0RC3

That's (arguably quite relevant) a UKcentric view of experience. Those numbers are an attempt to garner experience levels, tempered with a realistic compromise with finding crew within a local market. The UK through leaning slowly against the fence of legislative limits and complacency in a UK safety system has binned any notion of experience being worth much.

Years ago the UK worked like a lot of places, before dollar signs and the word "cadet" provided the answer to a problem they never thought they had, helped along with the piloting world which is only too keen to oblige underselling experience values in even their own kind. They must laugh themselves to sleep at night.

Look at the likes of KAL and what they require for a 744 Captain. Why don't they ask for 1500 hours for command? They'd probably ask for 20 thousand if they could but theyd be even more short than they are. Outside of the UK, flying a 744/340 into a high terrain airport a "250 hour kid" may have the veneer of being able to handle said aircraft, in the same weather they did their sim in (not having been binned, as you infur through not being cut out for it), but they lack the hidden aces up their sleeves. Believe me, stuff hits the fan and not in the way any sim can prepare you for or any SOPs. Then you're relying on experience and further more relying on the guy next to you with the years and exposure under his belt. I think the UK system of flying is less of a stage to show up the lack of these intangible qualities.

Expanding on your concept for discussions sake would you forward an idea they change the licensing requirements that all are issued a full ATPL upon completion of MPL, and therefore advocate a commander of an A320 in the UK have 200 hours total? Surely if your points hold water you'll carry truck with this.

[G-F0RC3]

I believe in experience, but I feel we need to look at it more scientifically than assuming 1500 hours is the answer and that all experience is equal. A pilot with 1500 hours TT where 1250 hours were spent in a Cessna 172 is not necessarily going to be any better at handling a 747 than an integrated course graduate with 250 hours TT.

Whichever way you look at it, flying is the safest mode of transport by miles. There has been no noticeable increase in crashes since these low-hour cadets started flying, and there must be a very good reason for that. Perhaps if an accident did happen that could be attributed to a 250-hour guy's lack of experience then things might change. Until that happens though, surely our focus should be on much more likely causes of accidents? Fatigue, perhaps?

My main point is that we need to look at things objectively and base decisions on evidence. If the evidence suggests that 250-hour guys aren't safe enough at the controls to be FOs then fine, but where is that evidence?

To answer your final point; no - I don't believe guys with 200 hours should be captains. It's probable that one of the main reasons the guys with 250-hours are safe FOs is because they are sitting next to highly experienced captains who can lend a hand or advice when needed. And the odds of said captain becoming incapacitated beside a 250-hour guy in conditions that he is unable to handle are very low indeed. Rarer - I'd argue - than both pilots falling asleep at the controls and running out of fuel.

[Cliff Secord]

Your last point, exactly. Relevant experience does count. In the cosseted theatre of UK/Euro Ops it works to rely on a huge experience gradient as it can be got away with. But not because it shines a torch light on how fantastic a short MPL course graduate is, or how 35-40 hours basic sim training on an A320 gives him all he needs to handle that aircraft when an engine fails below VMCG on a snow covered runway. Rather this record holds testament to the supporting safety net and comfort blanket that protects these inexperienced FOs whilst they build their time/egos up. A fantastic CRM culture, decent airport infrastructure, low terrain, wondrous ATC overall radar coverage, new aircraft fleets overall, excellent maintenance. Not so in some forms of flying, long haul into Africa at night. Then it's not safe to rely on the Captain as a stopping post for a lack of experience. He'll already be at capacity. That's why Cargolux/ KAL/ etc require decent experience.

Back to my point. In the UK it's not about safety. The meat and potatoes is the destruction of the career, for all. To the point that at the moment a train driver is rewarded better terms and conditions for less hours than the majority of jet First Officers. And the momentum will continue.

Any attempt by the sayers and naysayers to talk about safety is only dodging the obvious and taking conversation away from the heart of the matter. Even the "cadets" at some point may wish to change companies, see a future to retirement and with a lifestyle that won't kill them for peanuts working under continuous temp contracts and no company pensions. This affects/will affect everyone in the UK airline pilot workforce.

Edit: By the way. Interesting you cite fatigue as more relevant and wish to address this. With the current trade culture of terms and conditions and abundance of a work force willing to sell themselves for a ride to short cut to the top it can only be expected we receive terms, conditions and rosters that lead us to plead with the regulator. It all comes around. You reap what you sow.

[Luke SkyToddler]

G-Force and Cliff are both right - 250 hour cadets are safe enough in the context of a very very specific highly regulated first world airline environment, and they are an absolute liability in the wild west of a lot of far east / middle east / third world environments. I was very lucky to receive my Airbus training at a UK airline which really knew their stuff - and also I had the cushion of being a turboprop captain with 4000ish hours at that stage. I subsequently went to Qatar and then on to the far east airline I'm with now, and the training / operating / CRM standards were just :eek: by comparison, without getting into issues of culture let's just say that a lot of the captains are very old-school in their CRM and it's a sink or swim environment, you have to learn everything yourself because they aren't interested or capable of teaching you. A lot of the cadets in these kind of places really struggle for the first couple of years and it's not their fault.

HOWEVER - if that hypothetical big one comes in the UK with that cadet at the controls, it won't actually matter who's in the right or wrong. The typical reader of the Daily Mail isn't interested in the fine details of the hours vs experience learning curve. They are interested in outrage, shock, horror, pointing the finger of blame, finding a scapegoat and demanding instant band-aid answers from politicians. And that's what they'll get :hmm:

[Bealzebub]

It is amazing how many of these pseudo arguments cite AF447 or Colgan 3407 as being somehow evidentiary to the case against cadet pilots. Neither of these accidents had a cadet pilot in sight. Colgan had two crew with almost 5500 hours between them. By the criteria promoted by some contributors to this (and other) threads the very definition of "experienced" pilots. Indeed the changes introduced by the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010, wouldn't have precluded either of these pilots from being crew in their respective roles on that fateful day back in February 2009. However poor training, a history of failed check-rides, transcontinental commuting, and consequential fatigue, poor situational awareness and a lack of adequate response, were all cited as relevant and contributory factors. Similarly with AF447 there was not a cadet in sight, but plenty of "experience" on that flight deck. 20,500 hours of it! The most junior F/O had nearly 3000 hours (almost the same hours as the Colgan captain.) Similarly poor situational awareness and response were cited as likely factors in that accident.

The AS&FAAEA (2010) wasn't simply a minimum experience threshold, it also encapsulated enhanced stall training and testing requirements for part 121 carriers in the US. It also required remedial training programmes where there was evidence of prior performance deficiencies.

The cadet programmes with reputable operators, and I would suggest that is certainly most if not all of them in the UK, take a low experience pilot with a strong, consistent, monitored, and recognised training history and put them on a very steep early career path. The failure rates of these cadets is extremely low and the performance attainments are usually very high. It is also worth pointing out that your 200 hour cadet fresh into an airline is often a 1000 hour pilot 12 months later, and that numeric experience level is incremental at around 700-800 hours annually thereafter. That experience is relevant, monitored, mentored, and assessed in accordance with the industry norms for all pilots in the respective role. In other words the assessment criteria is the same whether the pilot joined as a cadet from a training school or whether they joined from another airline or from the military. In the early days there is a high degree of mentoring and monitoring but that gradually flattens out over a relatively short period.

The elephant in the room is often the example erroneously cited against low hour cadets. It is the poor training. Weak and inconsistent training background, and lack of relevant competency based training thresholds, that are so often a feature of these accidents. For an airline a lot of these risks are significantly minimized by recruiting low hour pilots from these recognised sources. You may not like that. You may not want to hear that. You may not believe that. However, many airlines do and have done for a good many years.

[Luke SkyToddler]

But the fact is Bealzebub that they DID raise the min hours requirement, and by doing so they killed off any prospect of 250 hour guys sitting in the RHS of jets in America, no exceptions, regardless of how good the operator is, or how well they're trained or preselected or whatever.

What's your opinion as to why they did that, if you don't consider pilot experience levels to be a major factor in safety?

[pilotchute]

Unless your being sponsored by an airline your not a cadet. You are merely a low hour new hire pilot. When I say sponsored I mean the airline is paying for part or all of your training.

If you have an agreement to be employed with an airline at the end of training then your a tagged student.

As I have stated previously, low time guys are hired because they are cheap. Not because they are a blank canvas as everyone keeps repeating. As another poster pointed out, having low time guys in the RHS in a modern jet in Europe isn't really a problem. Good ATC and long runways with an ILS.

Once upon a time the UK had a 700 hour rule for the granting of a CPL. Never had a shortage when that was the case. So when it was lowered to 200 something hours there is all of a sudden a preference to hire fresh guys? That doesn't make sense unless there is some sort of financial incentive to do so.

[Bealzebub]

But the fact is Bealzebub that they DID raise the min hours requirement, and by doing so they killed off any prospect of 250 hour guys sitting in the RHS of jets in America, no exceptions, regardless of how good the operator is, or how well they're trained or preselected or whatever.

What's your opinion as to why they did that, if you don't consider pilot experience levels to be a major factor in safety?

Presumably, because it was the politics of safety. That accident had absolutely no bearing on either pilot having less than an arbitrary 1500 hours, The Captain held an ATP and 3263 hours. The F/O had 2244 hours of which a third were on type. This legislation was a direct response to that accident, yet this aspect of the legislation on which you focus would not have precluded either of those two crewmembers from being present. However, the causes of the accident did consistently cite poor training, poor regulatory oversight. Likely fatigue from extensive (Transcontinental) commuting to and from duty. Poor background training and checking history of the captain.

I am not sure my opinion is really relevant to the domestically focused legislation of the United States. If you want a relevant opinion try This one! (http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2010/November/1/Safety-Pilot-(5)) If that doesn't suit you, scour the internet for any number of opinions that do. Without wishing to be drawn into the cultural or political modus operandi of another nation, what happens in the USA is no doubt (good or bad) suitable to the domestic focus of that nation. As anyone who has ever flown in the USA knows, it is a very different beast to much of the rest of the planet. It is a huge domestic geographic, demographic, and economic entity. It has evolved its own laws, regulations and operational norms to suit its own evolution. What works there...works there! It doesn't follow that necessarily always holds true outside of that country.

The USA has a particularly large aviation culture, and that extends from general aviation right through to airline transport. It has a large military source of obviously well trained pilots. Opportunities have historically been plentiful for the progression of pilots climbing through the traditional ranks. There has rarely been a shortage of good quality candidates vying for the airlines in that country. This is also a country that invariably sets a college degree as a baseline benchmark for airline employment. You don't hear much of a clamour for this to be adopted by other countries? In summary you have a large "stepping stone" culture within US (and North American) career aviation. Over the last two decades there has been a rapid expansion of the "regional sector" of that stepping stone culture. That expansion has drawn in a lot of "experience" that wouldn't (by definition) have ordinarily qualified for the first tier airline jobs. The cut throat economics in part a consequence of deregulation has brought with it some serious problems into this section of the marketplace. This accident isn't about Colgan air, it is about citizens buying tickets on an airplane branded as CONTINENTAL AIRLINES. It isn't about 1500 hours experience, it is about holding an AIRLINE Transport Pilots certificate which by default requires 1500 hours.

If you go back to the actual causes of this accident they boil down to fatigue and poor training. Within domains closer to home this is what airlines do address with their cadet programmes. They are not attracted by disjointed, inconsistent, patchy, unverifiable basic training, or indeed even the merest hint of it. They are looking for a seamless integrated verifiable product. It is significantly less risky. It is significantly less disruptive. It has a tried and tested history. It is relatively easy and quick to introduce tailored training requirements into the ab-intio syllabus. It is cost effective in a highly competitive trading environment. In other words.....It works!

[TheBigD]

I'm dumbfounded. I actually agree on certain points with BB.

[Cliff Secord]

See what happens when you go down the safety route arguments of no experienced pilots, rather than focus on the destruction of the career path? You end up with these swirling discussions that go round and round and round, all the while missing the points that affect everyone. You fiddle whilst Rome burns.

The "just add hot water-cadet" culture in the UK is harming the profession beyond help. It maybe the haves and the have-nots at the moment, with the naysayers secure in their feathered nests missing the view from the trees to see the problem on the ground. It will affect everyone now there's no longer a "carat" of gold the employer yearns for, even for the top jobs. No value in the commodidity thats being traded to push up trade values and conditions. Surely current employees want to see a future to retirement not working under continuous temp contracts, low pay, closed door systems to airlines unless with CTC channels and crippling fatigue limits?

It's a free for all. Only legislative limits will proctect against fatigue. Whoops too late for that it seems..

[pilotchute]

We'll one thing that was a side affect of the 1500 hour rule in the USA is all of a sudden the regionals can't find new hires. Not because of any shortage but because people who already have an ATP won't work for peanuts. This has caused companies to offer sign on bonuses and what not to try and attract people. They will eventually have to improve terms and conditions to get people into seats and this is a good thing.

When I said low hour guys are cheap that is what I mean. The regionals in the US had no trouble finding crew when the minimum was less than 500 hours.

[Luke SkyToddler]

Yeah Cliff EVERYTHING on pprune ends up being a circular argument, but, if your aim is to remove the 250 hour guys from whoring the profession and paying to fly etc, what's your plan to achieve that?

Do you actually think you'll achieve anything by b!tching and moaning on the internet and abusing the wannabes for undermining existing terms and conditions, and hope that they'll listen to you and stop flocking to the P2F like lemmings? I've been doing that for 20 years now, and have pretty much given up in disgust these days.

Or do you think it's better to target the safety aspect - which, regardless of what others think, I believe is a real and serious issue - and attempt to highlight the issue in the media and put pressure on legislators?

If there was anything at all that could be legally done about the economic damage they are causing, I'm sure BALPA would have done it already. Randomly slagging off at wannabes on the internet achieves exactly 0% of S.F.A. .

However as the Colgan bill proves, there is still a realistic hope of achieving what we all want to achieve and, I believe, improving flight safety into the bargain, if we can legislate this crap out of existence. But the argument has to made on the grounds of safety not economics if anyone is to pay it any attention.

[mad_jock]

luke the cadet thing will never go away because it makes so much money for the big boys.

They get to claim the VAT back on the training.

They get to pay reduced NI contributions etc.

Basically they get a free FO for 2-3 years.

Some may go on about being the best method of training etc for their operation but it basically comes down to the accountants seeing it as a cheap method of employing pilots. In fact some it maybe a revenue stream.

[Denti]

Even if it is not an revenue stream, which depends very much on the rules in the country, there is something to be said for a very thoroughly selected, tightly controlled pilot that works to your own SOPs from day one. That guarantees a known quality of the entry level pilots.

Pilots from outside the company sponsored training are a largely unknown entity with unknown training and experiences with more likely than not a lot that needs to be de-trained before you can train them up your own way. Which can lead to problems further down the line when they have to fall back on their basic experience.

Does taking in primarily abinitios or cadets lower T&Cs? Not necessarily. Lufthansa has done nothing else for the last 60 years and their T&Cs are not bad, but of course constantly under attack by management, so far they hold up quite well. Their largest in-country competitor who hires only cadets for the last six or seven years now in fact increased their T&Cs considerably by double digit percentage values. T&Cs and entry level conditions (payed for type ratings for example) are not only something that is enforced by management, they can be negotiated and a unified pilot corps of those that are already in, especially the captains, is paramount for good T&Cs.

[Cliff Secord]

Good points Luke. I've never intentionally "slagged" off any wannabes or new entrants personally, it's not their fault the system is the way it is. We all started somewhere. It's the way in which they start. The blame is hard to pin down. You maybe right the only way to legislate is based on safety. But I've got to be balanced about this, I'm not sure how I feel about the argument for the average UK FO flying within Europe. I wouldn't want a new FO heading into Afghan or Pakistan in a wide body but we're not talking about that.

Lufthansa I believe (maybe wrong) have real "cadets" who they pay for from the cradle.

[pilotchute]

Do EK take cadets that aren't locals? No. Does Saudi or Gulf Air? No.

Does Asiana or ANA take non local cadets? Again the answer is no.

Why is that? Do they moan about having to hire all these experienced people with all these "bad habits" everyone is moaning about?

As has been posted before most govts only make state run airlines hire locals because they want to be seen as helping their own citizens. I think in most cases the said airlines would rather not have to hire local cadets.

I think in Europe's case they prefer to hire flying school grads cause they will accept lower T&C's than experienced people.

It looks like the 200 hour blank canvass isn't as sought after as we thought. If it was the way to go why do all these serious international airlines not hire 200 hour grads?

[pilotchute]

They don't put 200 hour guys in the RHS of long haul ops that's for sure!

[pilotchute]

My point is the argument is flawed. The airlines I mentioned don't want any 200 guys anywhere near their equipment. They want experience and lots of it.

If 200 hour guys were so great ( you know that eagerness to learn and being a blank canvass. Especially none of those bad habits from other places either ) then why aren't these guys hiring them?

[RexBanner]

The reason is pretty clear. It's one thing blooding raw cadets on short haul where they have plenty of opportunity for practice but it's a totally different kettle of fish trying to land a widebodied aircraft when you're tired AND have no experience to count on. Not only that but the experience does not build up very quickly either when you're only doing two landings a month. The potential for damaged aircraft (which already happens at EZY/RYR etc) is far greater and far more of a burden in long haul ops where you can't readily replace an aircraft as quickly (and with greater cost).

[pilotchute]

So the conclusion is that 200 hour guys are the best thing ever and so much easier to train than experienced guys as long as we are talking about European short haul only?

[clunk1001]

raw cadets on short haul where they have plenty of opportunity for practiceThis hits the nail on the head for me.

I don’t really want some raw cadet practicing with me and my family in the back. In the same way I don’t want a surgeon ‘practicing’ on my appendix, or my accountant ‘practicing’ with my company Tax returns.

This simply highlights that the skills required for piloting a medium sized jet can be achieved with ease by a 250 hr cadet, no experience needed, unlike other professions. So I’m not surprised in the decline in Ts&Cs.

In other words.....It works! Like anything, “it works"….right up to the point where it doesn’t work.

The trick is to identify what isnt going to work and stop it.


Will there be a hole in the ground attributed to a 250hr Cadet? We don’t know.

But we do know the shouts of “I told you so” from across the industry if it does happen will probably be louder than the impact itself. And that should tell us something.

[UberPilot]

If you're licensed, rated and legal it's not practicing! If these dudes were flying under supervision from instructors without licenses then these arguments would be valid. But they're not.

Anyone licensed and rated can land fly the jet and has demonstrated and ability to land it consistently and safely. 'Practise' helps with slick CDAs, efficient fuel use and pax comfort…

As an aside, that Typhoon pilot who escorted the Qatar jet into MAN yesterday could well have been a limited combat ready guy straight out of the OCU with around 500 hours total and he's got live weapons! No one complains about that as its accepted that mil training is very good and has high calibre candidates. Flying a modern jet really isn't that hard!

[P40Warhawk]

Nail on the head Uber Pilot.

My question is always: How do I get experience, If I dont get the chance to OBTAIN experience?

Those experienced pilots got their experience also somewhere.

A fair mix of experienced and fresh Grads would be great. Especially on Short and Medium Haul flights. Best even starting with TP's, because those planes have no extensive AP and you fly average between FL180 and FL250. Exactly where there could be not so nice weather. You have to deal with that. You really learn to fly this way.

No Auto land, No Auto throttle etc. MAX Cat II landings, which are also not that easy to do without Auto Land.
If done this for few years, then move on to Medium Jet.

Just saying ;) .

[rogerg]

I remember a long time ago when the first BEA cadet (ex Hamble) was due for command. You can't do that, someone made sure that he could not get into trouble, he has never made a decision in his life!!
He trained, became maybe a SO, depending on AC type, then a FO how could he possibly be a captain. That was the story. Somehow they made it.
A bit like today, except they did get paid!!.

[UberPilot]

Like a lot of things in life it's about being in the right position at the right time. If you want to be a trader in a big city firm then you need to present yourself to them with a decent red brick Uni degree (preferably OxBridge) under age 25 or so. There's little chance to 'work your way up' to the fast track positions that pay eye watering salaries - sure, you can join the back office and earn a decent salary, but you'll never catch the fast track high flyers up. At this time the same generally applies to a lot of european airlines: If you want to join then present yourself to one of their chosen schools with no experience. If you chance your luck training else and then taken other jobs then they aren't terribly interested.. Also, the salaries are far from eye watering.

My point is that if you choose to join an industry then you have to abide by the generally accepted norm. This means bar a few exceptions, joining with low hours having been to a established FTO. This is well known, yet people still take their chances and look surprised when no jobs are forthcoming!

These pilots are all legal, safe and fairly keen. People keep saying there will be a crash and the system will then blame the low hours pilot, but every time there IS a crash somewhere it is often the very opposite, a very experienced pilot involved!

[eMACaRe]

Seems there are many whingers on this thread. They seem to have forgotten (or maybe it was so long ago that their brains are somewhat out of tune with reality) that they themselves were once in the same position as today's "low-hours" pilots. I bet they didn't complain then. Come on guys - give the newcomers a break. And yes, most accidents these days do seem to involve "experienced" pilots...

[RexBanner]

Of course it's practice!! You're seriously telling me you could land the aircraft as proficiently during your first few months on type as you could after a couple of years? Well in that case UberPilot you are clearly so naturally gifted that you are wasted in commercial operations and should be a test pilot instead.

Doing six landings in base training does not mean you are proficient at landing the aircraft.

[rogerg]

Well said, for both the above posts.

[UberPilot]

Of course you improve; all I'm saying is that by having your base training signed off and then the award of a TR that you have demonstrated the ability to operate to a set standard and, should the worst happen to the LHS then you should be able to arrive back at a benign airfield and put the aircraft on the ground. It is not like you're an apprentice electrician who has no qualifications and learns 'on the job' over a period of years before taking an exam!

Maybe my first point was poorly articulated.

[Cliff Secord]

As I have said earlier. I've nothing against new comers at all! It's great when you meet someone with the enthusiasm for getting into flying. As I also said I've no comment when it comes to safety with new guys flying like we all did around Europe as I don't personally think its unsafe. My only point has nothing to do with winging about new comers.

It seems a well agreed upon point that the current heavy factory supply chain of "cadets" (they're not cadets, the airlines don't lose money training them) is taking over recruitment and damaging terms and conditions. And no one would ideally like that, even if they are currently sitting it pretty. It's hard to envisage how skewed it has become if you're currently into a long stretch at a airline and even joined say 5 years ago. I know I didn't get it until I lost my job. I before , from my lofty arrogant perch, thought people should just get on with it and shut up. I realised quite how much it had changed, and how quickly, between me joining this company and re entering the UK job hunting pilot workforce with a bucket load of experience and fast running out of options to pay mortgage/feed family.

Nothing to do with having any gripe against a keen new person. As I said, it's not their fault when they come face to face with the situation and I wish these new guys had a better range of options such as I was fortunate enought to enjoy. Anyway, there's nothing to be done, it was just a discussion taking place and that's the point of talking.

[pilotchute]

Sorry john but we moved away from the safety thing a few posts back. It seems that in good ATC and ILS to ILS operations low hour guys are fine. What I'm saying is the argument for hiring them is b:'llsh@t.

Some people keep banging on how great they are because they haven't been tainted yet and other such nonsense. My argument is then why aren't all the non EU airlines who hire large amounts of expats not falling over themselves to hire 200 hour wonder kids from OAA?

I think the only people defending 200 hour kids are people who used to be 200 hour kids.

Funnily enough a previous poster wrote that he has only ever had problems with new hires from other airlines. All those "bad habits" you know. An acquaintance at a ME carrier said to me that the Easy/Ryan guys they get sometimes have problems themselves with transitioning to new SOPS!!! Who would believe it?

[rogerg]

I think the only people defending 200 hour kids are people who used to be 200 hour kids
Incorrect, I started as RAF trained.

[Denti]

We can talk about whether or not it is healthy from a Ts&Cs point of view to have such a bias towards cadets, and clearly the answer is that it's not good at all from that perspective

I honestly do not think that it is such a clear cut picture. The T&Cs at Lufthansa are among the best in europe, those at KLM or Air France are not bad either, and even Swiss or Air Berlin are not horrible. My company started hiring cadets through their own flight school (they still have to pay part of their training, used to be 60k, now its 75k €) around six years back. Since then our T&Cs have improved considerably and last year we negotiated a three year contract that increases pay by double digit percentages every year.

I think the only people defending 200 hour kids are people who used to be 200 hour kids.

True in my case i guess, i did my training at the lufthansa pilot school, not for lufthansa though. Just had around 1500 hours glider time before that which doesn't count over here for powered flight.

[Luke SkyToddler]

:mad: let me explain the problem to you guys in very simple terms.

I have no problem with Lufthansa, BA, KLM employing 200 hour pilots. I think it's absolutely great. They are chosen from a stupendously harsh preselection process, as being the highest quality 10 or so people out of probably 10,000 candidates, they are put through the finest training money can buy, they are mentored and supervised by their airline throughout, and in their first several months on the line they are exclusively flying with some of the finest training captains on earth, in perfectly maintained jets in a fantastically wonderful SOP and ATC environment. Safe as houses right? Of course it is, that is the dream that we all had when we first decided we wanted to be airline pilots, and that is the scenario that I think most of you are defending when you talk about 250 hour cadets.

But.

It's the dream.

It's NOT THE REALITY, not for 99.99% of us anyway.

The reality is, that the schools use the images of said dream, to market their product to every person that walks in the door who has money to spend. They make their PPL students wear epaulettes and hang pictures of A380s on every wall. They go through the motions of having a "selection process" which nobody fails :rolleyes: and they go to extraordinary lengths to talk about their "relationships with airlines" and every other kind of bulls:mad:t under the sun. This is all done with one objective in mind, to draw the customer in the door, and keep them happy until they have spent their money. And they are very good at it.

Which leads to the problem we have now. Massive massive oversupply of pilots who hold commercial qualifications but have no experience.

At some stage in the middle or later parts of your training, most of you probably realized or came to grips with the fact that you are NOT actually a special snowflake despite what the school marketing guy told you, and you have a potential problem on your hands upon completing your training.

Now what are you going to do about it?

No problem says the integrated school, we can sort you out with a "job" once you've completed your IR. It will cost you another 50,000 for the type rating and, ummm, you'll get paid 1000 euros a month, and, ummm, it's a zero hours contract so you might not get paid at all in the winter, and, ummm, once you've completed 500 hours there's a chance you might not get to keep your "job". But hey, you'll be a "cadet pilot" and you'll get to fly a jet!

This is the best that most of you can hope for nowadays. The 25% or so who fall into this category, are the lucky ones in some ways because they are probably in a European lo-co and still under that safety umbrella of European legislation. Not exactly living the dream and not exactly getting rich but they are learning their trade. They're still living at home because they can't afford their own place, and they are very tired all the time because of the long commute to work for those 14 hour 4 sector duty days with the low cost airline. And wow it was hard to understand those instructions from that controller in that crazy east european provincial airport we were at last night. But hey, we're safe enough right, we're "cadets"!

So. Now we have accounted for the 0.01% who got into BA/LH/KLM and we've accounted for the 25% who got into Ryan / Easy etc.

Where does that leave the other 3/4 of you?

Oh dear says the school marketing agent. Hmmm let me think. I can't do anything for you "officially" but I know a guy who knows a guy out in Indonesia and they sell type ratings and 500 hours on type. Can definitely get you in there. It will cost you 100,000 and you won't get paid at all. The operating standards aren't that flash, the captains are a bit "third world" in their CRM and the weather gets pretty interesting in the rainy season, and the FO's aren't actually allowed to do any landings because the company has had 3 B737s go off the end of the runway in the last 12 months but hey, what are the chances of that happening to you, you're the best of the best, you're a "cadet" and you're flying a Real Live Jet!

And once you've done your time and you head back to Europe, you'll be a Highly Experienced Pilot and the real airlines will snap you up for sure! I hear BA/LH/KLM will be hiring next year :ok:

You can see where I'm going with this.

This all leads to the kind of :mad: obscene and ridiculous situation we have HERE (http://www.pprune.org/south-asia-far-east/544124-737-ng-typed-whats-next.html). I work for a major airline in South East Asia and I can tell you that this part of the world is absolutely awash with sub standard pilots, and fake logbooks, and people who've been kicked off P2F schemes, and fools with 300 hours and type ratings on every kind of jet.

I'm sure those guys didn't mean to start down that path and I'm sure when they walked into that flashy flying school to start their training, they got told they were special, just like everyone else. But the end result is what matters. They are responsible for the lives of 180 other people, just like everyone else. It never used to be possible for those kinds of people to get into a large passenger jet straight out of school, it is now.

Can you guys see the problem yet? All this talk about cadets just goes around in circles because the term "cadet" is used these days to cover everything from the BA/Lufthansa astronauts, to the P2F accidents waiting to happen.

As you move further away from the elite legacy airline schemes though, and into the other circles, I feel it's absolutely true to say that money plays more and more of a part, and ability plays less and less of a part. That's why I have such a problem with it.

[cgwhitemonk11]

We may as well just close this thread because Luke SkyToddler just won at it. Best post i have ever read on prune

[rogerg]

We may as well close this thread as it has become hamstewheel.

[clunk1001]

What part of this aren't people getting? BA, LH, KLM et al. Have been putting cadets in the RHS of their aeroplanes for decades

John – As a business owner I love this attitude, as it allows my accountant to say …. "That’s great boss - we can exponentially increase the number of cadets we employ (from any old background), and significantly reduce the number of experienced people. We’ll save a FORTUNE".

This means I can take my massive bonus and buy that Austin Martin I’ve got my eye on. :cool:


I think the point here is that there needs to be a balance, for safety and for Ts&Cs. And the suggestion on this thread is that the balance is perhaps tipping too far in the wrong direction.

[rogerg]

Austin Martin
The best BL ever made!

[PPRuNeUser0173]

Well said.........

[MMurph]

There may be a trend for airlines now to use cadets, but this is of a temporary nature. All airlines will look for experienced pilots for recruitment at a particular time. I see it as a supply and demand issue. At the moment there is a huge back log of qualified cadets. And within the airlines a huge back log of senior First officers waiting to upgrade to Captain.
There is defineately not an issue of pay expectations.

With regard the standard of a cadet pilot, from an airlines point of view, they will have an affiliation with a particular school and they will appreciate the product they receive. The cadet is a less risk option for completing the Type Qualification in the minimum amount of hours. They know this from the previous cadets. And therefore less money for training.
I personally have flown with both cadets and experienced military pilots.
All of them can perform there duties to a high standard.

Airlines do value experience and yes they can speed up command upgrades this way if there is a need.
I believe there is no issue over an experience pilot complying with SOP's.
I know a lot of pilots in airlines that have spent between 7-10 years in GA before moving on to an airline, and some pilots who are still in GA. Either started their own company or are a career instructor.
Patience at a time like this is essential for someone in your position.

[Three Lions]

The issue isnt safety. Theres no evidence that cadets reduce safety.

The effect if Colgan in the US was incredibly valuable for the profession as a whole, although the reason wasnt due inexperience the outcome was very positive for the US pilot community

The inferred comparison that RYR/Ezy cadets are akin to BA/LH/KLM (and Aer Lingus for that matter) Is an amusing comparison, as the "Legacy cadets" have always existed in some form and there doesnt apoear to be an evidenced link to their existence and the lowering ts and cs. Id be interested to see any argument that the loco cadet role hasnt helped teduce terms and conditions for virtually all in the UK

With the recent news that one of the few remaining companies that has historically maintained reasonable terms and conditions for the workforce has had to change its strategy to a more loco angle, the fear is that the whole industry is slowly but surely been sucked downwards

The responsibility for all should be to maintain good conditions for all. To maintain the benefits that Aer Lingus, Thomson, Thomas Cook and (hopefully) Monarch continue to enjoy. And not allow the likes of RYR and Ezy to drag the whole thing downwards

I personally find the support on here for the current loco cadet route VERY short sighted, and suspect both loco cadets/ex loco cadets and also it is not beyond the possibility that those with a vested interest are posting under the cloak of anonymity.

The real issue is about the damaging effect the wholesale recruitment of cadets at the locos is doing to the industry, and to the future of the industry in the UK.

Whether a guy is a young blank canvas ready to quickly learn one set of SOPS that will burn so deeply it hurts or the guy who has oodles of experience and comes with perceived "baggage" each job is a privileged professional position and should be treated by the person irrelevant of their route in or background as such. Including the responsibility to work with others to protect the future (id argue this makes up part of "professional behaviour" )

So much tangential arguing and hidden agenda. The industry is a safe operation but it is prostituting itself. Just ask where will it be in 10 years... Just ryr & ezy paying €20k with no chance of a job if you happen to lose yours?