The concept of cadets flying airliners is fine in concept - the military have been taking kids off the street, training them and then sending them out in fighter airplanes with only a few hundred hours for years. The military, though, do three things that no airline cadet scheme that I have seen does (well):
1. Conducts thorough aptitude testing to determine if the trainee will assimilate the required level of learning at the required rate;
2. Invests millions of dollars into their training - not just as a pilot, but as a person - with the intent of making said trainee mature enough to cope with the demands of the role;
3. Conducts the training from start to finish in-house (or by a contractor company with military oversight) to a very standardised programme essentially guaranteeing a known product. Candidates who at any time fall below the learning curve are "scrubbed" not offered another go based on funding some extra training themselves.
Unfortunately, from what I have observed, the selection process for airline cadet programmes tends to be based heavily on how strong the bank account is that is funding the training...
There is no reason why a good training programme for cadets, funded properly (ie by the Company in order to guarantee quality), cannot produce a competent A320 F/O which should not require much more than guidance and mentoring from the Captain. In flight take-overs (as outlined above) from skippers should be extremely rare.
The thing I find interesting, though, is that the rise of these schemes may cause airline flying (in the flavour of QF /
VB / J*) to no longer be the "pinnacle" of civilian flying, rather it may become a separate and independant discipline that is normally entered at the very start of the career. As has already been stated elsewhere here - flying heavy airliners is a different kettle of fish to flying light twins single pilot IFR in GA, turbo-props in regional aviation or helos in the military. The skill set for each, although related, is different enough to have a wannabe pilot perhaps "pick a path" at the commencement of their career - GA becoming instructor, or GA becoming regional aviation in turbo-props, or military, or airlines. The traditional path of GA - GA slightly bigger - GA even more slightly bigger - airlines is becoming less distinct (and relevant) nowadays. The concept of becoming a master of one trade, not a jack of all, I think is becoming important in today's very diverse aviation industry.
How's this - the technology and reliability of modern airliners goes a long way to mitigate the requirement for experience garnered in "raw" flying skills, problems encountered in these aircraft would be best dealt with by adequate management of systems and redundancies, plus co-ordination of the crew as opposed to what many refer to as "stick and rudder" skills. A cadet, after 10-15 years at the very least in the RHS, I reckon would have gained enough experience by their participation and mentoring from Captains to be able to be considered for a command without too many problems. The fact that they have been exposed to it all this time would mean that if they haven't "seen it all before", I'm certain they would have heard about it in cockpit discussion! I have seen quite a few low time cadets excel in the sim through good systems management and CRM where 5,000 hour drivers (not of airline experience) have foundered. Specific skills for the job?
I loved my time flying charter in Navajos, Barons, etc - but none of that helped me with integration to multi-crew ops. Often I have seen that experience be a hindrance to those who have "learnt bad habits" and become "set in their ways".
There may be a positive in all this, though - these cadets should stay for years (at least 10-15) in the RHS to learn the complex job they are getting into. Because they bring nothing to the organisation initially - their pay / conditions should be lower than what "traditional" entry F/Os have earned. This may see a lot of the "wank and glamour" factor disappear from that job and encourage other avenues of aviation to develop with respect to pilot pay / conditions. Have we not seen a "downturn" in airline entry conditions and a (slight) improvement in many areas of GA and regional airlines? By way of example, I know of a flying school that pays it's instructors more than what these cadets will get annually in their first ten years on the job, and they certainly get more than a
VB Cruise F/O! Perhaps other elements of the industry will be able to attract / keep some expertise and professionalism and my kid might one day learn circuits from an instructor who has a breadth of experience. Perhaps the "cannon fodder" approach to airline schemes and subsequent lesser pay / conditions than before will keep some of the "little rich kids" away to do other things - after all, 85K outlay for something like 40K pa return (at least for the first several years) plus crappy basing / rosters, etc is not really a good investment considering the options available...
I agree with Pharoah that this thread is very entertaining, particularly with all the resentment out there, which is of itself, why the pilot profession is going down the tubes. I often ask myself why pilots (both junior and senior) prostitute themselves for poor pay / conditions / treatment by various employers, yet whinge about it at the same time. The answer I come up with is always this - because if they don't, someone else in our hallowed profession will and they will miss out - so better get in first! Professional prostitution / abasement / anything at all for that next bigger airplane...
This, of course, is the root of the problem - and Bruce Buchanan, et al, are simply taking advantage of this from a commercial perspective.If I was a shareholder I'd be cheering! Now, to just find an office worker who is happy to pay for their training on the new photocopier...
