Originally Posted by Chris Scott
During the first few years as a copilot you slowly adapt to the demands of the routine chores, and much of what was covered in the conversion is gradually forgotten. That is particularly unfortunate if you happen to be on long-haul, and lucky to get your one landing a month. Six-monthly checks are formalised, and the areas to be covered in the next programme are promulgated in advance for study and discussion. Apart from the mandatory items, such as rejected T/O and EFTO, the exercises tend to revolve around the complexities of systems failures. In the LOFT exercises, use of automatics during problem-solving tends (rightly) to be emphasised. There is little or no "fat" in the simulator schedule to permit ad-hoc flying practice for youngsters (or the oldies).
Very well said, Chris.
Originally Posted by Chris Scott
In line operations, the selective withdrawal of automatics I'm advocating is done at the captain's discretion, and with prior agreement. It should not be done at times when PNF workload is already high, which of course is more likely when one of the pilots is relatively inexperienced. It would not be programmed, formalised, or recorded; just regarded as a routine interlude of enjoyable self-development for the PF.
My perception is that the above is frowned upon in many airlines.
Even better-said!!
And I think that there are primarily 2 reasons for what we see today.
First – airlines are in the business of making money – and, as almost anyone can understand, training does not make money … it only costs – and those costs are both direct (instructor salaries, salaries of students, equipment and facilities costs, etc.) and indirect (loss of line flying – which is the only source of income, transportation costs of moving the “students” into and back home from the training site, costs of per diem, lodging, etc.).
Second – airlines are loathe to provide more training than is required by the regulations. Why? Certainly cost is a significant driver, but I’m of the opinion that conducting training beyond what is required by rule could be seen by some as management recognition, or at least suspicion, of the existence of a sub-par capability, attitude, or ability on the part of existing crewmembers. So, simply by having regulatory required standards, lessens the willingness of some to continue to provide training beyond that required by rules. Some airlines in the US have adopted training under what has been described by the regulators as a voluntary program which has a unique characteristic … and that characteristic is taking advantage of building a training program with “alternative” training goals, “alternative” standards, and uses “alternative” training equipment, which can be extended to “alternatively approved” intervals. Personally, I think this situation is one that has resulted in airlines being able to save significant amounts of money, prompting the appropriate industry training managers to go to great lengths to compliment the regulatory authority for such “forward thinking” … which, of course, does not hurt the professional aspirations of those few regulatory officials ultimately responsible for such authorizations. The problem is, as I see it – and I’m not alone - is that having multiple sets of “alternative” standards applicable to “alternative” programs, each using “alternative” equipment, to complete “alternative” task assignments, on “alternative” recurrent schedules results in a “drifting away” from standardized expectations of performance and capabilities of these crewmembers, particularly pilots … all based on the economic value being contributed to the airline bottom line.
I am not about to apologize for believing it appropriate that airlines pay their employees a just wage for the skills and abilities they must possess and demonstrate; that airlines should provide their employees frequent and meaningful training, both initially and on an appropriate recurring basis – using equipment and facilities that are appropriate for the tasks that must be accomplished; that airlines should provide equipment and facilities to provide transportation services to those who choose to use this particular method of transportation; that airlines should charge those who use those services a fee that will provide an adequate income to meet expenses AND meet whatever profit margin they deem appropriate. It simply cannot be expected that the employees, or the skills of those employees, should be expected to be sacrificed for competitive advantage over other similarly situated competitors. Of all of these components, the only ones that should be governed by rules and regulations are those of competency and capability – and they should be
equally applied to all who choose to participate in this industry. To me, this means that the regulatory authority should require that all participants have, and be able to regularly demonstrate, that the required capabilities and competencies are, indeed, addressed and that each appropriate person has satisfactory knowledge and experience to regularly and correctly exhibit those competencies and capabilities whenever and where ever called upon to do so. Clearly, this cannot be done through the authorization of individually approved deviations from established standards – particularly when those specifics (and any differences) are maintained as “confidential.” The requirement should be – no MUST be – a single set of demonstrable proficiency standards, using demonstrably appropriate equipment, for all who are depended upon to execute the duties and responsibilities of appropriate crewmembers (both cockpit and cabin) involved in delivering these services to the traveling public. If the regulatory authority should NOT do these things … I wonder why it is that a regulatory authority is involved at all.