Quote:
The challenges of operating 2-man flight deck, complex aircraft, in a tactical environment (C130J, C17, Nimrod MRA4, A400 and FSTA) particularly on low hours straight from the training system, means the standard/quality will have to rise.
It will be interesting to see how the TRTO requirements are applied to the RAF 'ab initio' A330 pilot. Because the input standard for civil TR courses assumes that the pilot has been trained to at least CPL/IR standard....
An integrated 'frozen ATPL' course is as follows:
Quote:
The aim of this course is to train pilots to the level of proficiency necessary to enable them to operate as Co-Pilot on multi-pilot, multi-engine aeroplanes in commercial air transportation and to obtain the CPL(A)/ IR. The course shall last between 12 and 36 months.
The course consists of a minimum of 195 hours of flying training and 750 hours of theoretical knowledge instruction. The course also includes training in multi-crew co-operation for the operation of multi-pilot aeroplanes.
Amongst other requirements, the pilot must have 70 hrs PIC, of which 50 hrs PIC must have been on cross-countries, including one 2 stop 300nm solo cross-country. I doubt very much whether RAF (or MFTS ) flying training achieves all this nowadays. I've already met one TriStar pilot with a considerable amount of operational experience who couldn't obtain a CPL without first having to do some hour building on PA28s....
Perhaps the RAF will evolve its own 'MPL' course for A330 ab-initio pilots?
Don't forget, Beagle, that those are the absolute minimum criteria for the frozen ATPL and issued CPL. There are plenty of those cadets about who can't get a job until they gain a significant amount of experience.
Ironically, it seems the only major players interested in these cadets are EZY and RYR, and that's mainly because they can screw them with low pay for the first year or so (EZY cadets not only pay for their type rating but also pay to fly), such is their desperation to find a jbb. both companies run their training departments at considerable profit. Good for the companies, but terrible for the cadets who find it hard to afford to live (EZY cadet bankruptcies are growing fast). However, because there is so much competition for the places within the companies, they can be quite selective about who they take on. I have come across a few who seem to lack awareness or technical prowess, but not many - the standard seems to be pretty high, and is certainly higher than I saw in Excel ( a more conventional "old school" airline, and great to work for while it lasted) or have heard of from colleagues who have been in the same companies as me and have gone elsewhere. I have found in both EZY and RYR that most of the best FOs were cadets with about a year's line flying behind them, not experienced entrants from other companies.
Just like with new RAF pilots, a lack of experience and flight hours doesn't necessarily mean they are no good.
As for the specific aircraft type being an issue, it isn't. A330s are very similar to fly as A320s, with an almost identical cockpit and fly-by-wire that makes them similar to handle. It's heavier, but has more thrust and bigger wings, so take off and landing speeds/distances are not that different. The 737 NG is harder to fly than the Airbus family because it has some odd characteristics, principally being so damned slippery in the descent and having nasty landing handling qualities. If so many cadets can fly it without too much trouble, then the RAF should manage to but the newbies on the A330 without much fuss.
It's not the aeroplane that makes the difference but what you do with it. It's the AAR which involves the complex skill, and I imagine it's the calculations of how much fuel to give away and when, especially when the plan is screwed up by weather or faults, as per the examples given, that is really complex. Given that each aircraft will have a refuelling operator in the specialised flight deck who will be trained and experienced in the role, and given the fact that the tankers won't be able to receive fuel, it begs the question again, why can't the civvy pilots do it too?