Originally Posted by
dr dre
No, the 500hrs multi command requirement is for low capacity RPT. High capacity RPT is just an ATPL. There have been plenty of captains flying in a Australia who had no command hours since CPL training.
So did the BA crew who glided a jet to landing in Heathrow who got their first jobs in jets need past non jet experience to land it safely? Or if the Gimli Captain’s prior gliding experience is what made the difference why isn’t that a mandatory part of the ATPL syllabus? Or the countless crews with prior experience who’ve made mistakes that have cost lives, do we count that against them? Like the SFO case, wasn’t the instructor, the guy who was supposed to be in command of the situation, an experienced ex-Korean air force pilot?
Meh.
Using Asiana at SFO was a poor choice - they crashed that aircraft because neither had a clue about hand flying a jet. Coupled with a lack of understanding of the auto throttle logic. They lacked
applicable experience - see where I’m going ?
The BA Captain did a stellar job. In fact, raising the flaps one notch is exactly what a glider pilot would do. Was he a pure cadet ? Yes, I think gliding should be a first step in pilot training. Especially for a cadet. The Germans did it for their fighter pilots prior to and during WW2. Until they ran out of pilots and time.
Remember those two Air France pilots that stalled an A330 into the ocean ? Both cadets. They’d been babysitting an autopilot their whole career. Numerous Asian crashes have involved MPL/Cadet pilots.
I find Qantas hard to fault in terms of training and safety. Hopefully their cadet programs won’t produce a negative result in the future. One thing is clear, cadet programs and ICUS are purely a result of cost saving efforts. Not safety.