Ok
A couple issues, Redsnail has got it in one.
1) Frozen BS
A big issue is this whole “frozen” ATPL, what is frozen anyway? Does it mean it was issued in Finland? Does this mean a Spanish licence is “Baked”…(well half baked at least).
Lets face fact, the only place on the plane this is referred to is in Europe. Whoever coined the term really f’ed things up.
All it really is, is a CPL with ME IR and passes in the subjects required to be issued with an ATPL. It denotes that the candidate does NOT have the required EXPERIENCE to be issued with a ATPL, be it actual command time, night time, IF “actual” time or whatever.
P1 means your where the buck stops,
P2 means that you are not the PIC of this aircraft
P1US / ICUS, means that you are undergoing the training to be P1
P1 in the right seat is pure BS, Do you hold the stipulated experience to hold an ATPL? Do you hold the stipulated experience to meet the company insurance requirements for P1?
The sooner inexperienced crewmembers, management and others stop deluding themselves the better.
2) ATPL BS
I (ttbs) hold multiple licences from my career to date, all are based upon EXPERIENCE, the JAA in their infinite wisdom have stipulated that you can only have an ATPL with a type above 5.7t. What a load of BS. Do they understand the problems this is causing some industries?
Quiet a few client companies that audit their aviation transport suppliers are literally pulling their hair out, why you ask?
Essentially insurance companies required the P1 to be the holder of a valid ATPL, this limitation ensured that the P1 had the MINIMUM EXPERIENCE required for the operation. Now there are plenty of guys in the industry that have multiple thousands of hours on type and could probably fly the box the thing came in, but now they don’t have valid ATPL’s simply because their type is not above 5.7t
3) Utopia.
Ok granted some of what was said is utopian and I will admit some was lost in translation, but although I agree, these are also utopian point
Quote;
The real solution would be for the airlines to have to bite the bullet, pay the going market rate for experienced pilots and fork out enough money to plan their training requirements properly in the first place
Could not agree more.
Definition of present airline management?
Quote; Unfortunately, the Harvard School of Management is only now beginning to reap the harvest of its flawed doctrine of teaching all their managers and accountants understand the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Absolutely correct.
4) Legacy carriers.
First paragraph, first post, sorry legacy carriers don’t count.
Quote; After all flagship carriers have, until recently, successfully trained their own guys from "zero to hero" through sponsorships, which most people on the site seem to lament the demise of.
Totally understand your point, same theme but a different track.
Ever hear of a “Legacy” carrier take a type rated guy with nil experience…. No nor have we. Their preference is bay far the following, Type rated but with experience and plenty of hours on type, not type rated but with experience… if they foresee a shortage the will require quick upgrades. OR, un-typed minimal experience that they can mould into good little worker bees that believe the myth and toe the company line.
This is why they do invest heavily in screening of potential candidates and using LH as an example they train their people the way they want them from day one. Not just meeting the requirements to pass the flight test for licence issue, but they are basically practising 2 crew from day 1.
This is what is forcing the hand of the regulators to “Invent” a new licence that may be issued for pilots that will no be a CPL/ATPL but a TYPE LICENCE ONLY, for the OPERATION WITH TWO CREW ONLY. Meaning these guys will never fly single pilot and will always have group decision making, and always have someone else to rely on. Talk about 7 of 9, more like 3759 of 5000!
5) Experience
Quote; What better experience than a few thousand hours driving a turboprop through the weather? How sad that these people aren’t valued by the bean counters?
Welcome to no man’s land.
6) Results
Quote; -a few smoking holes in the ground would make management take safety seriously. But we're not allowed to say that, are we?
LX, 28 Zurich. The sanitised report alluded to the fact that if the FO had of been more EXPERIENCED maybe they would not have been below MDA. (Yes we know that there were other factor’s..don’t shoot)
GF, BAH, The A320 STUKA, If the FO had more EXPERIENCE and the intestinal fortitude to say something to the LHS then this accident would not have happened and should never have. Cultural differences my ass, nobody wants to die.
The RJ in France not too long back, cant remember who, but if the FO had more EXPERIENCE he probably would have caught the captains incapacitation and taken over. Steep cockpit gradient? Maybe.
In each of these EXPERIENCE level was a contributing factor, along with other factors combined.
Quote; But we're not allowed to say that, are we?
No it certainly makes some in the upper echelons look stupid.
Your Comments