"Cadet" pilot or First Officer under training?
It sure seems that most of the tail strikes occurring in transport category aircraft over the last few years have involved 'low hour' first officers
IMHO there is a case for simulator instructors to physically demonstrate various sequences such as a take-off, circuits and landings with and without cross-wind, initial training of rejected take-off's, engine failure after V1, stall recovery from high and low altitude. A pilot new to type should then to be able to sit back and watch a good demonstration so he has an ideal to aim for. A picture is worth a thousand words.
An instructor should also have the instructional skill be able to demonstrate how not to fly a sequence and thus allow a new pilot the opportunity to observe the consequences of a stuff-up. For example in the simulator by demonstrating the danger of a tail strike by the instructor making a rapid rotation far beyond the recommended rate, would be far more value than verbal "talking through" method of instructing. In the case of the A320 incident that is the subject of this thread and the ATSB report (a rotation rate of 9 degrees per second was mentioned), a previous demonstration of the correct rate of rotation by a competent simulator instructor may have prevented the incident in the first place. We all learn by observing an expert at work.
The consequences of an unstable approach is another example where a demonstration of a high and fast final approach and subsequent over-run on a wet runway, would be of immense value to the student under simulator training. Instead it is common to see box ticking exercises rather than a pilot learning from observing.
Early or late flare height is another example where a good demonstration aids the students own judgement and learning. Same with cross-wind take off and landing. It is basic instructional technique. First demonstrate so the student knows what is expected. Then practice. That is why we have simulators.
Last edited by Judd; 5th Sep 2017 at 09:29.
I don't think anyone here thinks that a cadet with 0 hours on an A320 will be as proficient as a direct entry A320 FO with 4000hrs on type. I think what people are saying is that a "direct entry FO" being someone with thousands of hours flying light, non-FBW aircraft but none on the 320 wouldn't necessarily be more proficient as the cadet.
"I think what people are saying is that a "direct entry FO" being someone with thousands of hours flying light, non-FBW aircraft but none on the 320 wouldn't necessarily be more proficient as the cadet."
Of course they are, what a ridiculous assertion. Evidence? At JQ the cadet does more than double the flying hours of a direct entry (but non type rated FO). If they're equally proficient, why?
A cadet has lower limits compared to a direct entry FO. 10 kts xwind (vs 20 for non cadet) and cannot land on runways less than 2000m. A direct entry FO can. Again, why?
Originally Posted by Dre
he ATSB in a study disagree with you. CASA and almost every other regulator in the world disagree with you. Almost every airline in the world, some of whom solely employ cadets disagree with you.
Last edited by das Uber Soldat; 5th Sep 2017 at 12:39. Reason: qqquo
Originally Posted by DR DRE
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Green Goblin View Post
If anyone thinks a cadet fresh out of flying school in the right seat is just as safe as an experienced direct entry FO, they need their head read.
I don't think anyone here thinks that a cadet with 0 hours on an A320 will be as proficient as a direct entry A320 FO with 4000hrs on type. I think what people are saying is that a "direct entry FO" being someone with thousands of hours flying light, non-FBW aircraft but none on the 320 wouldn't necessarily be more proficient as the cadet.
Originally Posted by The Green Goblin View Post
If anyone thinks a cadet fresh out of flying school in the right seat is just as safe as an experienced direct entry FO, they need their head read.
I don't think anyone here thinks that a cadet with 0 hours on an A320 will be as proficient as a direct entry A320 FO with 4000hrs on type. I think what people are saying is that a "direct entry FO" being someone with thousands of hours flying light, non-FBW aircraft but none on the 320 wouldn't necessarily be more proficient as the cadet.
A cadet on their first flight is not as proficient as a direct entry FO with no previous jet experience. If anyone thinks they are, they need their head read.
A cadet doesn't know what they don't know. That's not their fault. It's purely the fact they have not gained thousands of hours of flying experience along with perhaps a regional command and the lessons that are learned along the way.
That's not to say they won't get there. Of course, they will. They are usually pretty smart kids. It just takes time.
The biggest lessons are usually the personal ones. How do you react when you're really scared? Have you ever had that experience that this is it, and how did you get it here? What is everyone going to say? Have you just about written yourself off? How close did you actually get? I got very lucky.
I would say the biggest lessons I learnt from GA was not the flying experience. It was the decision making experience. The ability to take a step back and 'nut' something out after the 'oh ****'....You don't want to be learning that about yourself in a jet. It's something a sim can't prepare you for.
