I'm not sure if it is CTC, I was under the impression that it was run by STORM aviation but I could be wrong?
How somebody progressed to line training with comments like "there is a need to greatly improve the landing technique which is still almost out of control." in thier training record beggers belief!
AAIB report
Quote:
However, it was not until the tenth simulator detail that an instructor wrote any detailed analysis of the co‑pilot’s landing technique. Constraints of time meant that early action to concentrate upon correcting his landing technique was not taken and it is surprising that such a comment made at this stage of his training, did not result in an immediate attempt to remedy his difficulties.
AAIB report
Quote:
The co-pilot’s training record to PPL issue was not available. The fact that he achieved licence issue in 45 hours of flying could be taken as a sign that he did not experience significant problems at that stage. However, it took him two attempts to pass the CPL skills test, and three to pass the IR test. From 2003 until he began the cadetship programme, he flew fewer than ten hours each year and not being particularly current, possibly, did not enable him to progress as straightforwardly as others through the conversion course onto the Airbus. Having failed to achieve the required standard at the simulator stage of the selection process, his second attempt was assessed not by an employee of the operator, but by an employee of the flying training organisation.
It seems to me that the "cadet" was struggling through all of their commercial flight training and was certainly not ready to step up to a complex heavy jet but due to the scheme being available, no regulations preventing it and a large chequebook it made it possable for this situation to occur.
Quote:
But don't blame the individual "cadets" - any incident such as this is a product of the "system" and it this (or maybe a lack of it) which needs to be overhauled with a much more pro-active attitude as to how the airlines produce safe and effective pilots.
The thought an Airbus was flown by a pilot who only had 234hrs total flying experience is just staggering. I know it is not at all uncommon, and that many get on fine, but I still find it incredible. At 234 hours I was still bimbling around in 152s enjoying myself and developing my arimanship. The thought of spending so little time learning things the hard way on your own in a lttle plane I find hard to accept as sensible.
Airlines say safety is their top priority but clearly it is influenced heavily by cost...
I was fortunate to help a young pilot onto the (A320) ladder not long ago. He is now two years into flying with a very major UK airline and started with about 250 hrs.
Easily the best 'cadet' I have ever seen and doing very well. I expect he will be A330 soon.
By the way, I was flying very fast aircraft at very low level and dropping bombs and stuff with about those hours.
Being low houred and yet flying a jet, I hesitate to comment. However, reading the report in full, it does make you wonder how someone who has obviously struggled significantly can make it all the way.
I wonder if the airline made enough from this scheme to cover the cost of replacing the MLG? I seriously doubt it. This does nothing to help those of us with low hours who work hard to fly exceptionally well, build our experience, and be accepted.
Bottom line isn't about cadets, or 250hrs TT and on an Airbus, or even the wannabes so desperate to fly they are willing to part with £26K(!) to do line training...it's about objective standards of selection being compromised by a financial incentive.
I don't mean to say that the TRIs/TREs are 'in on it' - in my experience it's quite the opposite in fact. But you used to have to prove you were good enough to fly for an airline - if you could not demonstrate that you were....goodbye. Now some airlines are involved in schemes where they openly advertise their flight deck positions for sale, with what seems like a bare minimum of safety standards applied. It should be that these seats are only available to the best candidates in the job market - and you can't tell me that there aren't lots of experienced, qualified guys about at the moment!
It used to be that 'just good enough', wasn't. Now it seems like 'almost good enough' is fine, that'll be £26K thankyouverymuch. Nothing more than prostitution of an airlines reputation.
Last edited by Dog E. Stile : 17th December 2008 at 20:14.
Anybody knows where I can get the cheapest offer for my friend??
We are making a stag-due for him and I would like to give him a ride in an airbus where he can land it with passengers just for the fun of it, he has never been flying before......I have the money to pay for it
..... On a more serious note, me think it is about time to put a minimum amount on hours as a requirement before a pilot can make type rating on a commersial jet, just as it was before JAR.
But that will have to come from the CAA to ever work !!!
I did copy and paste the programme costs on page 2, it's not Storm but, not wishing to commercially advertise, some may like to check the website of a Dublin based recruitment agency whose identity begins with 'sig'
Low houred wannabe's, unless of course daddy paid, have the stress of loan repayments to think of as well as flying a jet full of passengers, its just not right this exploitation, it is always gonna come back and bite you on the sphincter.
It will even effect on experienced captains as it will eventually erode captains T's&C's. Captains should refuse to fly with "self paying" wannabe's, to protect their own positions. In this climate it ain't gonna happen.
I know it is not at all uncommon, and that many get on fine,
Despite many very low hour cadets learning the trade with no problem I still find it incredible that an airline will take on a 234hr pilot.
Reading the report is astonishing, it is such a chain its such a pity for the operator and the chaps involved that it wasn't broken some where.
From the report...
2002 - passed CPL 2nd attempt & IR at 3rd attempt
2003 flew 9 hrs
2004 flew 8 hrs
2005 flew 8 hrs & did MCC
2006 flew 5 hrs then did jet bridge course / type rating / line training
So in the 4 years prior to getting his hands on an Airbus he flew a total of around 30hrs SEP. That's barely enough to stay current on a Cessna 150 let along develop the skills required to operate an airliner.
During type rating he appeared to be following the flight director below 200ft,
His type rating 1st attempt LST was a fail but was not recored as such.
During his base training he had to be 'reminded to look outside in the last stages of landing' (!)
During line training he did 28 landing of which commanders intervened during 9 of them.
Company ops manual said - cadet should do at least 6 sectors with the same instructor at a time - this did not happen.
Company ops manual said night flights should be avoided during first 6 sectors - only 2 of first 6 sectors were in day
Company ops manual said cadet's first 3 landings should be in daylight but his 2nd and 3rd were at night
Company ops manual said cadet's first 10 sectors should be flwon on same type, either A320 or A321 but cadet flew first 4 sectors on one model then changed.
When looking at the suitability of the occupant of the right-hand seat to occupy that position, I should have thought it prudent to ask yourself "would he/she be able to land this aircraft SAFELY in the event of my incapacitation?"
It is not just a question of economics, but fundamentally about the requirement for a two PILOT cockpit. Whether the individual concerned had the aptitude/training or experience to adequately fulfil the duties of PNF, it certainly does not appear that he/she would meet the criteria of the above paragraph.
Personally I think we are compromising proper training and the experience that these low-hour cadets really need just for the sake of a few months and a few more pounds.
It is an appalling story that has little to do with low hours but everything to do with airmanship. Any company that can gleefully overlook such an incompetent training record and still allow a pilot to fly should not be allowed to operate.
Do we know if the TR was aware of the disaster waiting to happen from the other seat?
In my company, happily before the days of Draconian SOP's (they felt that having made us captains they could rely upon our judgement) it was entirely at the captain's discretion whether or not he gave the FO a landing. Now if in this case the captain was aware of this chap's record, he loses a lot of my sympathy.
Airbus never envisaged their aircraft to be used for ab initio training,
Not only is the A320 used widely in the industry as an ab-initio aircraft, but also works perfect in the MPA programs (pilots without any type ratings on smaller aircraft) throughout the world. And this very succesfully.
All the first A320 operator like Air France and Lufthansa used it for ab-initio training.
Captain failed to recognize a potentially dangerous landing and failed to correct the situation in a timely manner by either telling the FO to perform a Go around or to take over the controls earlier.
Why would a Captain let a new first officer (with below standard grades) approach and land at an airport like KOS? unless a thorough self brief about all that could go wrong.....
operators of big,shiny jets,should consider the skills of those pilots who have achieved 1500 hours of uneventful takeoffs and landings in difficult to operate turboprops,with all the unforgiving complexities of variable pitch propellors to contend with.unfortunately,those who have worked hard to hone their flying skills have been overlooked in recent years,in favour of those with a financial backing which catapults them up the ladder.a recipe for disaster,obviously not,but many very capable aviators have not acieved the positions to which they should have by now,aspired to.will anything change,again,in these times of severe financial constraints,most operators will choose pilots who finance their own training either in full or in part.best people for the job,definitely not,but the job gets done.occasionaly with a damaged undercarriage or embarassing tail scrape.just a sign of the times,sad.
Can anyone make sense of the co-pilots training record on the report? Apparently he started his training in 2005, but completed his CPL and IR in 2002. Am I reading this wrong?
As many people have already mentioned there is more than one issue at stake here.
This chap obviously wasn't ace of the base, but that doesn't excuse a training regime where obvious failings are ignorned. Not everyone is cut out to sit in the cockpit of an airliner, but since the airlines no longer train and thoroughly test their own cadets, it is very difficult to judge who is good and who is merely adequate.
I have trained and flown with many people who are able to pass the exams and get through flight tests first time. Does that mean that they are actually any good?
Nope, no way. Many schools are exam factories and whilst there are some very smart and capable people coming through the system, there are an equal number of people who are frankly out of their depth. Fortunately modern jet a/c are a piece of cake to fly on a normal day to day basis and we get away with it.
It's when things go t*ts up that you really find out that the person sitting next to you is about as much use as chocolate teapot.
It is sad that it takes an incident like this to highlight the problems, good safety management means that we should be looking for problems rather than reacting to them. Has this industry got complacent since there hasn't been a fatal accident for such a long time?
I hope not, but since the vast majority of problems are still caused by human error, then having people sitting up the front who really aren't good enough and haven't got the experience or training to drag themselves out of the poop, then I'm not hopeful.
Linear Mode
