We need a regulation that requires pilots to be adequately trained and ensures the full development of the skill sets they will be required to use to accomplish EACH of the tasks that they are going to be expected to perform … such that the crew will be able to recognize developing circumstances that might or will require diligent application of those skills … and the training should include exposure to the various characteristics of the airplane they will be flying, recognizing the limitations of both the airplane and of themselves (never to exceed either), so that they will have a functioning knowledge of what to expect should the crew or the airplane get into some circumstance that is beyond what they would normally expect. Personally, I don’t care if that takes 250 hours or 2500 hours; and believe me, I’ve seen the results of the full spectrum of training requirements and have seen the resulting skill sets that made it out onto the line. Competence and professionalism are just what those titles indicate, and neither one comes at a specific milestone of “logged hours.” In fact, for some, it would seem that neither comes with ANY amount of “logged hours.” We all should be grateful for 2-person crews, the advancement of airplane technology, and the superb reliability of airplanes and airplane systems. But, I humbly believe it is way past time to start addressing the realities of the following:
1) the purpose of screening pilot applicants;
2) the content of training programs;
3) the competency achieved through that training; and
4) the true cost of such efforts.
We cannot continue to demand more and expect it to arrive with no additional effort or cost. We have to ensure that pilots have the knowledge to understand and correctly respond to situations that they’ve only read about or seen in a video. However, to be able to perform in those situations, the skill sets they have available to call on have to be present, they have to be accurate, and they have to be able to be used without having to analyze the structure of the developing situation and run through a mental checklist to decide what procedure should be followed … all of that can be said by saying we should expect the pilot to “FLY THE FRIGGIN’ AIRPLANE.”
edit
One additional item ... I think its time for the world's regulators to step up to the plate and stop trying to "play nice" or "flex" their collective or individual "muscle." Regulations provide (or should provide) a minimum level of safety. But they also apply a level playing field - giving no one a clear advantage or having no one suffer under a discriminatory issue. We now seem to find ourselves wanting to find "evidence based training" and develop an "advanced qualification program," where everyone gets to develop training that is "specific to a particular operator" and doesn't have to be developed to address "requirements of the rest of the industry, when it doesn't apply to us." Hogwash. Pure and simple. Airplanes are airplanes. I can almost guarantee that not one airplane knows what colors are painted on its exterior and knows, therefore to handle or perform differently. Sure, there are airlines that have particular needs - perhaps high altitude airport operations ... fine ... they should be required to train for that - and not everyone should - again, fine ... put that into the regulatory structure. I completely agree that if we don't see engine failures at V1, we don't need to train for that eventuality ... but there isn't a whole plethora of issues that get into training programs today that are just not seen - ever - in day-to-day operations. Realistic, effective, logical, repetitive training - that demonstrates realistic, effective, logical, and professional behavior. Is there anything wrong with that?
Last edited by AirRabbit; 8th Aug 2010 at 18:50.