Cadets over Experience ? please explain
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Europe to Africa
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Northampton
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Northampton
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I think that easy do this kind of system for the MPL.
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.
I think you will find easy just tell the bank your good for the money. They don't help you pay it.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: On the road
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Cliff Secord; 3rd Aug 2014 at 22:46.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
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
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.
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
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.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Northampton
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
You spoilt your argument by being unpleasant. There are plenty of integrated students who have "life experience" prior to starting flying training.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Fair call roger but I was just being sarcastic at the expense of
which comes very close to winning the trophy, for the biggest steaming pile of horse 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.
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
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.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Northampton
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
That BS as well. Some have all the things including the wife and kids, you can't generalize. They are all different.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: On the road
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Cliff Secord; 3rd Aug 2014 at 19:19.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: On the road
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Cliff Secord; 3rd Aug 2014 at 20:09.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: On the road
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.