Training of low hour pilots in airlines

[international hog driver]

A question for all Line and Training Captains with regard to low time and cadet type pilots.

I am now a training captain myself operating in a multi crew transport category aircraft.
Previously all the ‘training’ I had done was with experienced crews ie: FO’s upgrading to command or new hires that were experienced (thousand hour plus).

Now I (we) find ourselves flying with cadets with fresh licences, how fresh you ask? Lets say sub 300 hours.

Myself and other line captains have found our own jobs have become exponentially more difficult in having to fly and watch the fng like a hawk. Essentially we are now flying in some circumstance Single Pilot IFR in transport category aircraft.

I know that this goes back to the economic decisions of the company and the basic standards or level of competency required to achieve line clearance.

The question is this.

For those skippers that have faced the newbie/cadet level of experience, do you revert to SP IFR skills, and how do you increase your own vigilance when you are pre-occupied with training these crewmembers new to the profession.


:{ :ugh: IHD

[3142]

Why didn´t you ask this Q when you were a low-hours-pilot to your captain at that time?

[mad_dog]

What a classic answer!! nice one.

[411A]

IHD,

Did exactly that for a lotta years (280 hour guys, give or take), and it certainly helps to have a Flight Engineer in attendance, as he can provide assurance that at least the machine is behaving normally...never mind the junior guy in the right seat.

All I can say is....be patient.
The big smile on the new First Officer when it all comes together (and it nearly always does) is certainly worth the effort.

[buttline]

As a low-hours pilot about to do a jet conversion, I'm genuinely curious about the kind of mistakes that you are seeing in line training with low-hours guys when compared to say the guys who have 1000hrs or more on turbo-props, instructing or air-taxi - if you could elaborate or give an example, I'd find it really interesting.

Perhaps your company is selecting FOs for 'who they know' rather than demonstrated ability in simulators during selection ala BA, Britannia, CTC etc...?

[Maximum]

IHG

Essentially we are now flying in some circumstance Single Pilot IFR in transport category aircraft.

............trouble is, it's even harder than that in many ways 'cos you've got someone distracting you at the same time!

And yes, I agree, the job does become exponentially more difficult.

I've always found you've just got to be 100% aware of the potential for a huge f*%$ - up, and training must always take second place to the overall operation. At the same time, don't be pressured into rushing 'cos the guy is slow - if you're late off stand, so be it.

Very easy for descent planning to go very wrong for example, with the obvious potential for hot and high approaches.

Very low time guys/gals with no jet experience will almost invariably be shy of the ground in the last couple of hundred feet, with a tendency for always reducing the rate of descent and landing deep.

Patience and vigilance definitely the key - and don't assume anything. Had a guy tried to wipe us all out one night - nice ILS in gusty conditions, then totally out of the blue chopped the thrust at about 100' and pushed forward on the stick.:} Afterwards he said he was scared of floating.:hmm: I told him I was scared of dying:E :}

Anyway, as 411A says, it's a great buzz when you see them starting to gain confidence, skill and consistency.

Good luck.

[Bokomoko]

Hello international hog driver,
First, you must have a training plan. It’s very important that the trainee is provided with a clear idea of the training process, giving him guidance on his priorities in learning and explaining how it will operate and, in the first place, make use of the safety co-pilot. PNF duties during early stages is a good beginning to give him more opportunities to improve his basic skills with ATC terminology and communication, documentation, panel scan flows, and etc, and therefore he can progressively organize his workload. The qualified F/O must be carried until when you’re confident in the trainee’s ability to land safely the airplane, operate the radio… at least.
Well, I used this plan during many years teaching very low-hour pilots on 737 and IMHO worked very well... and I never flew SP.

Bkmk:ok:

[witchdoctor]

Forgive my ignorance, but if an experienced and competent training captain can't teach low hours trainees to fly multi-crew jets, who can? If these 1000+hrs guys are coming to him/her with multi-crew jet time, then who taught them when they were obviously newbies? And if they are coming form a single crew, single engine environment (as most probably are in the UK), then how much difference does it really make when neither the newbie or the 1000+hr trainee has any multi-crew experience?

As the obvious spawn of the devil, I'm just curious.

[FlyMD]

To start making your life simpler, just look at the problem from another point of view: what do these low-hour, stream-lined cadets bring that your experienced direct-entry FO does not? Most of the time the answer is that the cadets are much more "streamlined" in terms of company procedures, call-outs, SOP and so on... They never did anything different, and don't have to "forget" another way of flying.
So I guess I'm trying to say: reduce your work-load by demanding absolute perfection on such matters as mentioned above (they have had time to learn it, and should be motivated enough to have crammed the book), and leaving you capacity to concentrate on the basics, such as descent planning, scanning, flare and landing....
I was such a 1-year-wonder cadet not very long ago, and had a LOT to learn when starting on the MD80 with 250 hours total... But the big help was that during my whole sponsorship program, SOPs, briefings, and scanning systematics were consistent with an airliner. So my training captains did NOT tolerate any deficiencies in wording, call-outs and such, and instead could concentrate with me on the "flying"...
Still, it's a HUGE step for a cadet to do in a very short time, and I would not want to do it the same way again...

[Maximum]

FlyMD,

good post - sums it up nicely from the trainee's point of view.

witchdoctor,

sure, if you're talking about low-time cadets going straight onto a jet transport, then yes, of course, someone has to train them.

But, they're making a big step, and this is what presents some unique training challenges.

[clubley]

Listen,

Don't start making it even more difficult for us to find work. For godness sake, we all (even you) had to start somewhere!!!!!!!
After all the money, blood, sweat and time we have all put in to get our FATPL's we don't need someone complaining about companies empoying low hour pilots. :mad:

[john_tullamarine]

Having been involved in training ab initio cadets with varying 200-hour backgrounds onto the 737, I have for better or worse, formed the opinion that a lot more than "standard" simulator endorsement programs can go a long way to reducing the problems you see in early line training.

A truncated quickie endorsement might be acceptable for a current and experienced jet pilot (or a cadet if the emphasis principally is on button pressing) but the cadet expected to demonstrate any level of manipulative or planning competence generally doesn't start to get it together until around 15-20 sessions. A sensible LOFT program of sim sessions can put a bit of procedural and manipulative polish into the equation ... not much depth, of course ... but, at least, the training captain doesn't have to start from scratch on the line.

Cheap insurance I would suggest .... but, sadly, the almighty dollar appears to win the day in most cases it appears ...

[Maximum]

have to agree JT. The more enlightened airlines I've worked for have added three or four extra sim sessions, usually simple loft with structured non-normal management built in. Of course this is really a bare minimum, but as you say, it does help when line training starts.

[Crossunder]

If you wanna know how to handle the low-timers - call SAS Flight Academy or SAS Airline. They've been training them for years without any problems...

[Midland Maniac]

the truth is that not all 'low-houred' pilots need watching 'like a hawk'! The failure comes from the poor selection process in some airlines. OK, you may have passed your ATPL groundschool without failing an exam, but that does not make you a good pilot.

I was low houred, but thanks to the confidence building of the training captains in my company, I was allowed to grow. Allowed to push myself to the limits. Worked for me.

Good luck to you though!

[swish266]

IHD,
I don't know where you fly, but if it is in the "turd" world U must be ready to do The One Man Show Act any time.
I did some training on F-27 more than 10 years ago with a decent company with proper Training Dept with all the good factors thrown in - a lot of these Low-hours trainees r flyin now wide-bodies on d LHS.
Let me give you some examples from my "pathetic" HVN experience:
While still F/o I had to pamper and do d above act with Ansett trained Vietnamese Captains (who only flew wit Ansett instructors in d RHS).
When I got my Command, I flew wit 2 ex-mil dat had a total of 800 h and about 90 years between dem. HVN never bothered to send dem to a Jep course. Dey could not read the charts!!!!!!!
Another guy, I had to fly with had done 3 ground courses on B767 in Seattle before actually dey put him in d hot-seat. His commie Dad wanted his poor son to become a pilot!!!!!!!
All of this because HVN was playing Ansett, Royal Brunei and Region Air against each other. All 3 companies had to train totally inex/unsuitable pilots to retain d contract with HVN.
My Boss at one time had actually to bring in Boeing people, to do base training to prove d unsuitability of some Vietnamese trainees. We had to do their base train - while d Boeing people assigned dem on d average 150 observer legs!!!!!

[international hog driver]

Ok, I’ve been away for a week long trip and having read the responses it has shed some light on what my colleagues and I are facing.

To clarify some of the grey areas, yes we are in a lesser developed part of the world, yes some of these guys are more “political” appointees rather than keen aviators and yes some are good others are not.

The replies have only emphasized the deficiencies that we (the trainers) have indicated to the company. We do not have the luxury of a ‘safety pilot’, it was suggested and they offered to place two of the trainees in the cockpit.

The local captains have refused to fly the ‘training routine’ for several reasons.

If anything goes wrong (& it does) they will lose face.
They are scared of repercussions if they tread on the toes of some of the well connected cadets.
Some realize their own limitations (others do not).

This is in no way a reflection on cadets themselves, myself I was never in that position. Self improver to low capacity multi-crew environment, and onwards, so my introduction was slightly different. We used the same procedures in the small stuff as the bigger stuff and hence the step up was more a handling type of experience than a procedural change.
We were not part of the initial training processes and the new crews were all trained by locals designated by the company. We were simply given a new bunch of pilots and told to go fly, with the new guys apparently competent to local standards.

Now before anyone jumps up and down and says that “you have to start somewhere” or “we cant be expected to pass the highest lever” here is an example.

Several of the cadets have been trained in external countries, and their quality is generally much better. One was trained in the UK under in a structured environment before he returned to his home country. Without ever flying locally he was employed by the opposition where a friend of mine trained him in ‘western ways’ (thanks Nugget – you did good). He was subsequently employed by our group and he came to me to ask why Capt X does this and Y & Z do that. He is simply more competent than the rest.

It simply goes down to standards.

Now for some of the low timers who may not understand me clearly. Personally, when I have to pax or my nearest and dearest have to travel, I want a competent crew, where the Skipper is not having to do everything while ‘training’ a pilot of below average skills. I am sure that one day when you are in the LHS you will know what we mean.
When you are flying an aircraft that has been dispatched within the extreme limits of the MEL. In a non-radar busy procedural environment. Where English is not the first language of crews or controllers. In mountainous terrain. With turbulence, CB’s, diversions and a wx radar that’s favourite colour is magenta, all the time trying to show a newbie the ropes.

Safe flying crew

IHD
:ok:

[West Coast]

I know its won't be popular with the ab initio crowd, but give me a high time guy. The progression to the right seat of a large jet in the US in via the military or through regionals. Either way, by the time they make it to the right seat, they have been Captains on a complex turbine aircraft. Thinking like a Captain is something that can only happen with experience. The monkey skills of IFR are easily learned, thinking like a PIC is not.

[Boeing 7E7]

AS has been said earlier, there is no problem with putting a low houred pilot into the RHS of a complex jet provided he is of the right calibre. It has been done for many years in europe with the major flag carriers and others.

The facts of the matter is that not everyone is capable of being a low houred FO in a jet. Proper airline selection procedures should see to this.

In the same way that not every military pilot is good enough to be a fast jet pilot. And not every fast jet pilot is streamed into single seat stuff either.

[wilco77]

Edited

wilco77, if you repeat personal attacks on people here for asking questions I will ban you from the Forum. That also goes for anyone else who thinks this is a "flame" forum. As I have stated on several occasions, this forum is extremely valuable in allowing people to ask others (possibly seniors) questions that haven't been answered or cannot be answered elsewhere in their lives/careers. I am not prepared to permit the trigger-happy few to inhibit questions being asked.

[411A]

Yes wilco77, flying is fun and all that...but you must indeed remember that not all guys/gals have your talent.

Having trained quite a few low hour guys onto heavy jets, sometimes it ain't easy, as IHD indicates.

As you seem to have it all down quite nicely, perhaps you would care to enlighten us.

Also edited - see above

[kinsman]

IHD

I think patience and empathy are two important factors in training low time cadtes, occasionally strong nerves are also required. They do not lack enthusiasm which is a big plus. Yes they are at times difficult to teach especially on a busy day when the operation is turning to worms but it is rewarding.

One or two can get a bit big for their boots once they get on-line but that gets knocked out of them over time. A concern for me is that they are missing some valuable experience by moving straight to the right seat of a jet not to mention fun. Overall I think they miss out but I am sure they don't see it that way. The only real problem I can see is when you get a disproportionate number comming through an airline as it does dilute the experince levels.

[Rananim]

Aircraft today are so reliable and so automated,that airlines can get away with hiring 250 hour guys/gals in the RHS of a jetliner.Ryanair and Easyjet would have a very hard time if they didnt have this option.A fair proportion of experienced guys wouldnt accept their working practices.But the young guys dont mind...they'll sign up for the bond,take the half pay and still be happy because they're flying.And there's nothing wrong with that I guess.Except that if something were to happen to the Captain,you are left with a very junior guy/gal who only knows how to program the autopilot and fmc and not much else.Oh yes,and SOP's.Not much use when the situation is critical.If the passengers only knew.
There are many examples to illustrate my point but the FEDEX hijack incident some years back will do nicely.These guys were fighting for their lives when a disgruntled employee decided to bring the DC-10 down on the Fedex building in a suicide mission.The Captain at one stage was in the back grappling with this guy who was armed with a hammer.The F/O,a high-time pilot,as are all Fedex co-pilots,knew a thing or two about flying and was able to manoeuvre the aircraft in such a way that the Captain was able to gain a small advantage on the attacker.The very fact that he felt he could safely leave the flt-deck to take on this maniac,speaks volumes for the practice of having TWO EXPERIENCED pilots on the flt-deck of any commercial jetliner.I wonder how many Ryanair Captains are afraid to even take a leak during a flight.Be honest now.
IMHO,a pilot should have about 3000 hours total time,with about 500 hours command in a turboprop,before he/she gets anywhere near the RHS of a jetliner.Thats how it works in the States and I dont see it changing anytime soon.

[Boeing 7E7]

And I suppose you don't recommend anyone fly as a passenger on a regional aircraft, be it turbo prop or jet, because the copilot on that would have less experience and it would be very unsafe.

In your world turbo props don't get hijacked? Nothing ever goes wrong?

I think you will need a better example than that to prove your point!

[LEM]

Airplane is airplane, and I don't see any difference in bringing a jet or a prop back on the ground safely.

I have seen copilots unable to bring back a turboprop in the sim on the ground if left alone!

As Rananim says, if the passengers only knew!

This is just one of the shameful aspects of aviation.

Safety first? Bull****!

Money first, and safety only if unsafe means the risk of losing money.

My opinion on the original matter is that rookies should first build some "stature" on smaller airplanes as bush pilots, as I did in Zaire, as captain with 400 hrs.

They would also enjoy a lot more flying before the airline routine.

Anyways, when it comes to their skills, I have always focused on their instructor's skills.

I'm disgusted when I see so much focusing on their filling papers and other frills, when what a rookie needs is the basics of flying: hand flying, IFR crosscheck, situational awareness and decision making.

In other words, a really good instructor (one of the old school, maybe....) will make of a rookie a good copilot, one which can really guarantee safety, even if left alone.

Copilots unable to reasonably safely bring the aircraft on the runway should simply not be released until able to do so. :ouch:

[Rananim]

QuoteI'm disgusted when I see so much focusing on their filling papers and other frills, when what a rookie needs is the basics of flying: hand flying, IFR crosscheck, situational awareness and decision making.

100% correct.Excellent post.

Boeing 7E7,
This has to be learnt somewhere.Lets make it in the right seat of a small turboprop/piston doing night freight...not a 737 with 187 passengers.Dont you think?

[411A]

In one carrier where very low time First Officers were trained onto heavy jets directly, we were told by the Chief Pilot that..."I don't care how long it takes, the new guys will be trained to proficiency."

And so we did, train to proficiency.This included 36 hours in the sim, a minimum of forty circuits in the aircraft.
The new guys were not sent to line training until they could consistantly demonstrate and successfully handle an outboard engine failure at rotation, followed by a three engine ILS/missed approach, VOR/NDB approach, circling to land.
ALL maneuvers hand flown, absolutely no autopilt allowed.

Line training followed, with a safety F/O for the first forty hours.
Two hundred line training hours were initially scheduled, and more if needed. Again, ALL approaches were required to be hand flown.
In the end, a very proficient pilot emerged.

[timzsta]

Next year I will be another 250h fATPL wannabee. This thread makes very interesting reading.

I emphasise with those who are Training Captains and have fears about the competence of low hours guys. I know how you feel - I was a Bridge Watchkeeping Officer in the RN for six years and had the pleasure of helping to train new guys to be an Officer of the Watch. It is a "pleasure" because despite the hours of pain and the heart stopping moments when the "new guy" does something totally unexpected and sometimes dangerous, when it all comes together and they are allowed to keep watch by themselves it gave me a great deal of satisfaction to have helped them achieve that.

The problem for us new guys is in getting that experience to be in a position to get into the RHS, certainly in the UK. Even those companies operating the smallest twin turboprop are not interested in recruiting anybody unless they have 1500+ hours, 500 multi engine, multi crew etc.

In an ideal world we would want a structured career progression where people can get their license with 250hrs, get an instructors job doing 1000 hours or so single engine. Then move to a small turboprop outfit and then be able to move to the jets once they have about 3000hrs. We dont however live in an ideal world. The money in the airline industry, certainly in europe, now lies in two areas only, IMHO. Firstly long haul work with the majors, then short haul low cost operations. Both of those mean jets.

So certainly in those first few sectors the Line Training Captain should assume the new FO knows nothing and watch every move made. But after a few sectors the Captain should have found out a bit more about the FO competency levels and be asking himself "what can this guy contribute to the operation" instead of thinking "here is another day operating in the limits of the MEL, single pilot IFR, in ****e weather on non-precision approaches in and old aircraft with somebody who knows nothing".

I look forward to my line training, with whoever it maybe, with however many hours, on whatever aircraft.

[PPRuNe Towers]

timzsta,

Well thought through but there's one logic bomb in it that won't fully tally with your watch keeping experiences.

In all liklehood each time the trainee flies it will be the first time the line training captain has clapped eyes on them. That's the way of the world in airline rostering outside the US trip pairing system or small companies - it's not for want of trainers wishing to give consistent guidance of several days of operating.

Rob

[international hog driver]

Just to give you an update of the past few days.

One local crew went IMC 4000ft below MSA. No instrument procedures at airfield.

A trainee with a fresh skipper landed short, no significant damage.

All expats have suspend Line Training for local Captains, as it is simply getting ridiculous.

Watch this space………

IHD
:(

[Dockjock]

2700 hrs, just spent the last 2 years flying air taxi and freight in the C208. Now I'm on a PA-31 doing the same thing. One thing I know I'll miss when I move on to the bigs is the fun that can be had on the beloved EMPTY LEG! Too bad for those who never got to experience one in something other than a C150.

[West Coast]

Dockjock
When you make it to your next step, your Captain will be thankful of your background and experience. Especially the later as that allows you to bring much more to the cockpit than a 250 hour pilot. Its the difference between being legal to sit there and being an asset. Good luck to you.

[LEM]

One thing I know I'll miss when I move on to the bigs is the fun that can be had on the beloved EMPTY LEG!
Dockjok,
you make me recall my two hours at three feet height trips over the Congo basin in absolute freedom years ago, making fishermen jump into the water, children running in all directions in villages forgotten by God, and eventually washing the airplane in a big rainy cloud to remove all the bugs on the windshield...
:{

[scanscanscan]

Yep...All good fun and a lot of us oldies did that sort of thing in DC3 and light aircraft, we got away with it.
I suggest you do not mention these exploits to your DLR doctors assesing your mental fitness for employment with the bigger airlines. Testrone character today seems mainly unwanted in airlines.
Gf expat pilots who buzzed the crew hotel pool in a 737 were soon fired.
Modern airline flying I found can give a different type of buzz. When a series of long and difficult trip over many years are made safely without incident or any AIDS tape violations with or without the variable input skills of the other crew members it gives a certain satisfaction and keeps your job.
Expat pilots IMHO should if humanly possible steer well clear of formally training local pilots if they do not plan to soon move onto another more normal airline.
The threat to a trainers work permit is not worth the risk of training if you plan on staying.
I found it much nicer to help any FO informally by plenty of chats off the aircraft who asked questions rather than have a Duty to get someone through in minimum time on the aircraft who basically was only there for a laugh and to chase the girls and had my work permit by the testicles.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Timzsta,

Which path you take is entirely up to you. Note the requirements of the turboprop operators and wonder why? Because it's tough flying in smaller turboprops where you are generally 'off the beaten path' a lot more and without the automatics and general support you get in large aircraft.

Why not head out to the bush and fly a few thousand hours? I guarantee you'll never regret it.

I had 6600 hours when I joined my first airline and over 7000 when I transitioned to a jet from a 4 engined turboprop. In that 6600 hours was 5500+ multi command of which 3500+ was turbine, single pilot, in Twin Otters and Banderantes.

Firstly it was all GREAT FUN and secondly a (airline) jet is no place to learn how to fly an aeroplane.

Ever wonder why so much of modern endorsement training in things like airbus and even some of Seattle's product is done on autopilot? Because so many of todays younger pilots and even some not so young can't handfly for ****e!!!

What you don't learn before you fly a 737 you certainly won't learn in a 737.

Chuck.

[Sheep Guts]

Here here Chuck well said

No amount of Training can replace or sustitute for Experience and Experiences. I say


Sheep

[Maximum]

Ever wonder why so much of modern endorsement training in things like airbus and even some of Seattle's product is done on autopilot? Because so many of todays younger pilots and even some not so young can't handfly for ****e!!!

Well, yes, that all sounds very macho and wonderful and is great for puffing up one's ego at the bar, but it's not actually correct. There is a focus on autopilot work as well as hand flying these days because of the complexity of modern systems and because in the past people were screwing up in an emergency because they didn't have the skills (through the wrong focus in training) to use the automatics properly - hence lots of people hand flying when the **** hit the fan instead of reducing the workload by engaging the autopilot. Or being caught out by the automatics when they did decide to use them.

What you don't learn before you fly a 737 you certainly won't learn in a 737

Again, a great soundbite but it doesn't actually make any sense. I've trained sponsored cadets who've gone straight onto a jet and never looked back - their selection and training equiping them with all they need to gain experience in this particular environment and go on to eventually become Captains of a high calibre. I've also trained pilots with the kind of experience you talk about, and some were good, but also some weren't very good at all. So I'm afraid in my experience your vague generalisations don't accurately reflect reality.

You also have to remember in the UK and Europe the kind of bush flying experience you're talking about is virtually non-existent, so it's a non-starter in that part of the world. Doesn't produce any less competent airline pilots though. Horses for courses.;)

[Chimbu chuckles]

I don't think it's about chest thumping at the bar, I think it's about being a well rounded aviator.

Way to much time in Simulators is spent on auto...they don't want to see handflying beyond a minimum required by some rule or other. Certainly autoflight guidance is a huge boon to situational awareness and task management in high workload environments but when we spend so much of our working lives driving an a/p and then don't even get a chance to handfly much in sims, particularly assymetric, then the trend is heading in the wrong direction.

I too have trained young blokes to fly in aircraft as diverse as C185 in bush flying and a mid sized corporate jet . It is absolutely true to say that some 200 hour guys I have had the pleasure of training shat all over some 1500-2000 hr guys but the overall trend seems to me to be heading down....big time!

How many times do you here from jet training captains "well they can answer any question and programme the FMC better than I but ask em to land in a crosswind at night!!!"

Young people today place little, if any, value in experience. Beancounter run airlines have no concept either it seems. People are ending up in jet cockpit left seats with big holes in their 'bag of experience' and, it seems to me, airlines, various regulatory bodies and the aircraft manufacturers are all relying on technology to reduce the required size of the 'bag of luck'.

I think it's reasonable to suggest that the latest wonder jets are actually a little harder to fly, in an overall sense, because the automation tends to distance the crew to much from what's going on...hence the old joke about "what's it doing now?"

Mix in with this some of the less rigorous 'affirmative action' policies at some airlines in the developing (aviation wise at least) world and I think aviation in general is heading in an entirely sad and dangerous direction.

My first jet was an F28 in a very mountainous, Tropical, 3rd world country. Lots of short sectors and lot's of handflying and lots of brain work because the aircraft was so basic...no FMC/autothrottle blah, blah. Combined with a very excellent check and training department that made damn sure you were taught properly and checked to a high standard..well the expats anyway:ouch:. God it was a great way to learn jet flying and has stood me and my peers in good sted where ever we have ended up.

Chuck.

[LEM]

Sheep Guts,
let me quote this from "Crew resource management" by Brian McAllister:
Training is much more than the effort to improve our system's knowledge and hone our physical flying skills. Training adds to our bank of experience.

Yes, training is also experience.

It is said that no pilot can make all the mistakes that can be made in a lifetime, and none can make all the experiences that can be made throughout a carreer.

So it's imperative to learn from the mistakes and experiences of others.

Experience can be transmitted.
How?
By good books, by many accident reports, by a good instructor.

And here again I point out the quality of the instructor problem.
Most of them are kind of "cold" and "detached": they will tell you how you have to do a certain thing, but without "entering" your brain and your heart.
I can tell you how to do it, but only if I know your mental process, your weaknesses and way of thinking and tell you how to think it in order to achieve the desired result, because I've not forgotten the time when I was a rookie, only then I'm a good instructor.

It's always amazing to me (and rewarding) to see how I can solve a copilot's problem in a second, in areas where the "official" instructors were unable to shed any light.

Regarding the "bush" versus "airline" experiences diatribe, I'd like to add a few words.
I personally started as a bush pilot in Africa, and that was very formative, before joining an airline in Europe.
That gave me a good initial calibre, however I realized after a while that, maybe surprisingly, I was not good at all at raw data hand flying instrument approaches .
Simply because bush pilots build a stong character but never get the opportunity to fly real IFR approaches.
So I decided to train myself everytime it was safely feasible - that basically means in good weather poor traffic.
And when I bacame captain I was able to do that everytime I wished so.
So I flew hundreds of raw data approaches, and my skills became renowned.:O

Morale to all this: what we need is training, and training is valuable experience.
A bush pilot who never trains at IFR will be a good bush pilot, but not a good IFR pilot.
A 737 pilot who never trains raw data, will be a good IFR pilot (hopefully), but unable to revert to raw data when necessary.
It's as simple as that: do you want to be a complete pilot, a "well rounded aviator"?
You have to train ALL skills.

It's bad to see pilots screwing up the automation, and it's bad to see pilots not confident with hand flying.

:sad:

[Sheep Guts]

Well LEM if all instructors were Brian Mc Callisters, then we would have no problem would we? But sadly they arent :(

Experience can be transmitted by good instructors, very true.

But the discipline of instrument flying is maintained by practise. Hey who said Bush pilots cant fly IFR, tell that to an RFDS Royal Flying Doctors Pilot next time you meet one.
The ability to react under pressure also cant be taught through books, and thats the type of experience Im talking about, that" Bush Pilots" , can acquire through there day to day operations.

We all learn from books and teachers all our lives LEM, but have we really learned from them. Alot of the stuff is pumped in and then memory dumped once weve passed the critical exam etc. This is where I believe theorists hit a wall, and that wall is " hard earned experience".

Those who have problems with Automation need more sim time and those with poor basic Instrument skills need more sim time. Operating a sim at $450/hr, the Poor Automation guy should get first usage with the Poor IFR guy sent back to a Flying School. Thats my opinion.

Sheep

[LEM]

Those who have problems with Automation need more sim time and those with poor basic Instrument skills need more sim time.
Sheep, exactly as you say, sim time is not affordable and a few extra hours are absolutely insufficient!

That's why everyday self training is so important.
It can and must be done on the real airplane.
Forget about sim!
Believe in your culture, and challenge yourself - or help the rookie doing so.

[Ignition Override]

Are the new guys trained on enough system problems and emergencies in the simulator, to enable them to also both fly the plane and talk to ATC (during IMC climbout over high mountains in Kalispell, Montana, or the Alps...) while the ever-patient regular line Captain is very distracted by the "Center tank fuel not feeding", or "Cabin fails to pressurize" procedure etc, and WITHOUT any LNAV/VNAV/autothrottles?:)

Also, does the very high level of academia (Britain, Europe) studied for "foreign" licenses sometimes confuse the newer pilots' ability to improve situational awareness, i.e. clearway design, weather forecasting, now many Joules in continuous ignition (burner cans 4 and 7, or 5 and 8? ...how many angels can dance on the head of a pin)...?

[4dogs]

Folks,

Very interesting thread, particularly as it got so close to the normal Mexican stand-off between those already there and those frightened that they won't get the opportunity.

In the end, it is always about risk management. That is why automation exists and why simulators exist and why training systems are regulated and.....

I am old and automatics only featured in one third of my life. I love automatics because they are an aid not a crutch and I can survive very nicely by myself if they fail. I hate seeing automation-dependency, whether it is kids who can't count if their calculator fails and can't write if their computer crashes or if it is B717 pilots who would go sick if an autopilot was MEL'd.

Because I am old and survived places like Chimbu's Land of the Unexpected, I also like the idea of experienced trainees for the jet, particularly if the weather, infrastructure and terrain are all very shabby.

However, the original question was not about preferences - it was about how to deal with a decision already made to employ inexperienced pilots.

The first step might be to analyse the risks of the operation itself: what hazards are inherent in the route structure, the airspace, the weather, ATC, the aerodromes, the national culture, the aircraft type, the equipment standards, the maintenance arrangements, the company culture, the training system and the crew demographics for a start?

The second step might be assess the impact of all of the identified hazards under such focus areas as finance, legal, performance and social standing.

The third step might be revisit the level of hazard if the existing crew demographics are changed by introducing low time recruits.

The fourth step then might well be to look at dealing with the resulting risks and how to reduce, remove or control the risks accordingly. The advantage of adding formality to this process is that emotion and folklore get isolated from the core issues.

I suspect that such things as the length and syllabus of the ground school and simulator/flight training package would be revisited and it may be that the company may modify its automation policy to provide a balanced outcome. Some routes may be declared unsuitable for in-flight training. Some Training Captains may also be similarly declared.

But when push comes to shove, the Training Captain needs to find out what the trainee has never done, has done but not well and has done well. At the risk of being counter-culture, I find that generally they are good at instrument flying and handling abnormals/emergencies because that is what traditional training focuses on, but they are not so good at PNF duties - so I let them fly first. Importantly, I treat the first couple of sectors as a comfort zone entry point for them to show that there is strong relationship between simulator and aeroplane and that they can cope with real time events - basically I try to use the Safety Pilot as the other half of the operating crew while the newbie gets to explore.

I think the risk assessment demands the use of an experienced FO as safety pilot - although a tough call in many places, it may well be the risk mitigator that prevents a major cock-up.

In my experience, the trainee is probably already quite apprehensive and most likely to be standing on the edge of a self-confidence cliff. The important task is to lead them back from that edge because once they believe that it is all within their capacity to cope, they will have the brain space for all of the experience-based hints, short cuts, warnings and assistance that you will want to stuff into their brains. The critical task is not to overload them with too ambitious targets at the early stages.

My final comment about how to deal with this particular situation is that you need an ally in the training management, because your first training attempt may well be just as big a voyage of discovery for you as it will be for the trainee and you need the flexibility to extend if your training plan turns out to be too ambitious - your duty as a trainer is not to compromise your trainee's future as a consequence of your performance.

It can be done and it can be done safely if the right environment, both management and training, is created and maintained.

Stay Alive,

[international hog driver]

Very Nicely put 4dogs.

If you are where I suspect say Gday to Shaggs Howel for us.

In our situation, automation or lack of it, is not a factor. Aptiude of candidates is.
Unfortunately we have a very week training management and little support from the head office.
One of the Expat captains has resigned in protest of the whole situation:(

Cheers
IHD:E