Originally Posted by Kirks Gusset
The original thread was about airlines that allow pilots to pay to fly, perhaps an attempt to " name and shame", however,now it's drifted into the normal "safety compromised" by these guys paying to sit in the RHS or LHS (AKA Command programs).
The thread was an attempt to name and shame P2F airlines. But right away, people began to write about what was and what was not to be considered P2F, notably RyanAir and EasyJet. Others wrote that P2F and Cadet candidates were safe and that P2F was morally wrong but technically safe since it was almost like Cadet programs.
I think that making people pay for their type rating is P2F. Having a number of large airlines operating just one aircraft type is a fairly recent phenomenon, with most large airlines generally being made up of several types of aircraft. What about those airlines that operate several different types of aircraft, would they also expect the candidates to pay for their TR and have experience on type before coming on board? BA for example has six TRs. Thomson has 4 or 5. Air Canada has 6. What type rating should such candidate buy should they decide to join a multi type airline ? (assuming they also began this pay for your TR practice). Then what about changing types once you are in ? I have flown 4 different types of aircraft since I started at my present company. Not for fun but because the numbers of aircraft changed and the company's pilot's NEEDS of different aircraft changed. I had to change types to adapt to corporate decisions. Would RyanaAir and EasyJet have billed me for a TR every time I changed aircraft ?
I think TR should be paid by the employer and that having the pilot pay for his TR is "pay to fly". Imagine what will happen when RyanAir decides to purchase a fleet of 787s, or EasyJet a fleet of A350s?. Who will fly them ? Who will pay for the TR? Will the 787 and 350 positions be sold to the highest bidder ? They will probably start if off as a new company and make everyone pay to join.
Finally about the safety of low time pilots. If well trained low time candidates are just as safe as the others, why not put two low time guys together in the same flight deck? If that argument that they are safe was true, they would. But they don't. And never will.
The accident and incident reports that have involved P2F pilots and pilots that had entered the airlines as low time Cadets never mention this fact. There are no statistics about P2F incidents. As an example, I have already cited that the last three consecutive LionAir Accidents and incidents involved crews whose SIC were P2F. These reports do not mention this fact. So there are no statistics about it. When I wrote this, someone advanced that P2F had nothing to do with these incidents and that LionAir had other problems, not related to P2F which were at the root of these accidents and stated as evidence, that Europe, despite P2F and Cadets, had a safe record. AirAsia most likely had a P2F pilot at the controls. AF447's SIC and PF had "flown" about 6000 of his 6500 hours as SIC on A320/340/330. The SIC and PF in the Air France A340 that overran the runway and burned in Toronto in Aug 2005 was a Cadet, hired at zero time. After his muti-IFR CPL he was hired as SIC on A320 before moving on to the 340. There are probably many others, should one take the time to look.......
I think that there are many P2F and Cadet related incidents in Europe that are just swept under the rug because they go against the trend and because big money is involved.
I reiterate that I think that low time P2F and Cadet type programs by-pass an important part of a pilots flight training when they go straight to flying highly automated aircraft in a RADAR controller IFR environment. Granted they become efficient at operating the aircraft in that environment when everything goes as planned or as practiced in the Simulator, but often real life emergencies are not straight and forward and were never practiced in the simulator.
While I was at my present company, one A330 ran out of fuel over the Atlantic at night and a A310 lost his whole rudder in cruise flight. Both of these aircraft landed intact with no injuries. These are not things that one practices in the simulator.
How many times in accident reports do you read that the pilots had never practiced a particular event in the simulator ? There are many malfunctions that occur and that are not in the non-normal checklist and for which we have never trained, and that is when experience kicks in and often saves the day.
People here keep stating that anything that is not related to flying jets concerns Cessna 172s but that is not true. There is whole world of aviation in between the 172s and the airline jets which used to be part of a pilots' experience. If that part is to be skipped, it must me replaced by something substantial and that something substantial cannot and should not be 500 hours of PNF at LionAir. It has to be real flying.
Why is an ATPL issued at 1500 hours and not at 200 ? Because the authorities in every country recognized the EXPERIENCE one gains during those extra 1300 hours as valuable and necessary. If 1250 of those extra 1300 hours are done flying straight and level on autopilot, with the PIC doing most take offs and approaches, what experience is gained ? They are just lines in a logbook.
Edit: I just saw this new thread:
http://www.pprune.org/terms-endearme...rated-dec.html
Why does a company like RyanAir need to resort to Direct Entry Captains? What about its thousands of experienced SIC ? Someone is going to write that this has nothing to do with P2F.
Yet if RyanAir had been in the habit of hiring experienced 4000 hour Q400 captains as B737 SIC instead of 200 hour pilots, would this be necessary ? No because such a pilot would be ready to go left seat when needed at RyanAir.