ICAO Co-Pilots need only 80 hrs airborne from 2006

[RVR800]

An article in Flight International heralds a massive change
in the way that co-pilots are trained (Page 5)

Essentially only 80hrs in a light single are required - the rest is done on an airline sim

The single crew IR will be binned for copilots- they will only have to do the multi-crew on the airline sim

Light Twins are apparantly too expensive for the airlines now
The days of the need for a initial single Crew MEIR are coming to an end for co-pilots from 2006 under ICAO.

...watch the JAA follow...?

[411A]

If true, probably not a bad idea.
Sims are so much better these days than just a few short years ago and teaching these guys in a multi-crew environment from the beginning is always a good idea, IMO.

OTOH, there will be those that will say...'well, they need experience'.

These young co-pilots will get it alright, provided companies will approach the subject in the correct way.
As these guys will not be in charge of anything for a long time, incidents should not be a problem.

Wonder if the high caliber of training Captains can be found?
Was in training for quite sometime, and it can be very demanding...for sure.

In addition, if the young guy does not have the right attitude from the beginning, it will be readily apparent, and the training funds can be applied to those that do. :ooh:

[Sleeve Wing]

Lookout ? What's that, Sir ?

LOOK OUT !

[Splat]

Why bother with the 80 hours? Only a matter of time before thats too expensive as well.

Somethings just not right here. Surely there is basic airmanship that only time at the wheel will give, and this cannot be gained in 80 hours in my opinion.

Splat

[Agaricus bisporus]

And in some airlines Airmanship is being suffocated out of existence by SOPs that are so stifling that you can't even fart except in the company way.

In a few years time there simply won't be any airmanship left, but all the FOs will have fifty hours flying in singles, plus sim, so that'll be OK, won't it?



It's a gift, you can't learn it...(apologies to 19 Course...)

[Timothy]

The days of the Single Crew MEIR are coming to an end from 2006Is this to extend to private ops (ie will I still be able to go around in my twin in IFR using private privileges?)

[ECWK]

You can see it coming - SOPs that stop thought processes and cover every eventuality become programmes (computer programmes) coupled with pilots who never fly a real aeroplane (only a sim) this can all soon be reduced to the foolproof CIC - computer in charge.

We are testing the logic (software) for the next generation as the hardware exists already. ETOPS reckons the chance of a catastrophe is ... so when the human-free flight deck approaches this level of risk and the cost of employing people to make mistakes has risen we will see hundreds of pax committing themselves to the air - on their own. Autoland is proven. Slots only exist because we can' t be relied on to get to a point in space at a particular second.

ATC - no more, the transponders talk to each other already. Separation - we only worry because we can see all these fast moving tubes getting nearer and nearer. As long as they all miss each other everything is fine - computers don't get tired and once we have proved the logic works - hey presto!

It will cut down on security costs as there will no longer be a flight deck to interfere with and only pax to check.

Cabin crew happen to be cheaper to hire and fire and will be able to report any inflight problems. In these selfservice days why have so many - a video (CD) and your own lifejacket will be all that is needed, and a coffee/tea machine by the toilet.

How long until this happens ?

PS - Accident - whose fault ? Computer glitch. Who pays ? A natural hazard.

[Max Angle]

These young co-pilots will get it alright, provided companies will approach the subject in the correct way. They won't, they will do what they do now, try to fill their front seats as cheaply as they can get away with. Is this to extend to private ops (ie will I still be able to go around in my twin in IFR using private privileges?) I'm afraid you already can't. Under JAR all IR's are type specific, to fly a light twin you need to do a renewal on that class of aircraft, your airline jet IR renewal does not cover you.

[unmanned transport]

Unmanned Combat Plane Tested...

The military moved a step closer to taking pilots out of the action with the successful test of a new drone bomber. Under remote control, Boeing's X-45 Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) dropped a dummy bomb to within inches of a target truck on the desert at Edwards Air Force Base in California. The pilot was 80 miles away when he pickled the bomb. "It's absolutely a huge step forward for us," Boeing's Rob Horton told the Associated Press. "It shows the capability of an unmanned airplane to carry weapons and people someday." There's nothing new about drones packing heat. Armed versions of reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been used in Afghanistan. Boeing claims the X-45 is the first drone built for the purpose of dropping bombs and sees a bright future for the tailless, stealthy-looking jet. This technology is pioneering the way for future pilotless travel. Boeing hopes to build hundreds and the military has already said the drones have a role in performing extraordinarily dangerous missions such as taking out missile and radar sites. Such security doesn't come cheap, however. Each X-45 will cost between $10 million and $15 million, but it's not clear if that includes all the stuff (and people) on the ground needed to make them work.

[CATAWAMPUS]

Just another method to overload the commander. And should he/she succumb to the stress in-flight... 81 hours and some time in a sim will not be adequate for a safe single crew approach and landing. God help the passengers. Maybe some media hype to alert the public would stall this abhorent idea before it gains too much momentum.

[411A]

Hmmm,
Two ways to look at this, IMO.

First, select a guy/gal for training, with minimum experience.
Say...80 hours.

Train 'em the right way with your procedures, and have 'em stick to the plot, no excuses.

-OR-

Select the 'experienced' guy from the air taxi market, with minimal twin time...and have to 'retrain' 'em to do it the company way... period.

Having done a lot of this, IMO, option one is far easier.
No arguments...they don't know any better.
From my perspective, the end product will be far better trained.

This all assumes, of course, that no shortcuts are allowed.
If they are, all bets are OFF.:ooh:

Just to add,
Trying to 'retrain' some young turkey who thinks he knows it all (at about 600-800 hours) is a real pain...:yuk:
In this case, training Captains have a hard job.
Far better to start with folks with no preconceived notions.
If they don't perform, out the door, pronto.

[leftseatview]

Couldn't agree more with Agaricus bisporus and ECWK.
For those of us to whom flying is a passion rather than a just another job,it is painful to see Airline SOPs slowly taking the pilot out of the decision making process. The day is not far off when Airliners will fly without pilots(possibly within the next 100 years of aviation)So i guess some of us were just lucky getting paid to do what we loved doing anyway.If the SOPs get too stifling,i'll just let the new 80 hour types get on with it,and take up single pilot recreational flying.(And avoid using airlines as a means of transportation!):ok:

[GLADTOBEONE]

Down to minimum approach and go around with single engine in a twin at 02.00 hrs in the morning, with grotty weather, freezing cold and just you in control and you get it wrong..........

1. in the sim just hit the freeze button and ask the experienced guy at the desk what happened.

2. in the aircraft, hit the deck and ask the guy with the feathered wings which cloud you should go and sit on.

From my experience the real thing can be a whole lot different to an nice warm sim.

[Slim20]

Currently under the JAA you need only 150hrs to go on to multicrew IR/type rating.

Are the extra 70hrs single-pilot, single engine VFR flying really that valuable?

411A takes the trainers perspective without getting hysterical about experience and airmanship - that surely is where the airlines will be coming from?

Cheap to train, easy to retain - isn't that the current mantra?

[ICURA?]

Check out the trend over the last 50 years. The flight deck had a flight engineer, radio op. , nav. , and two pilots. Now only two pilots , and they are fast becoming just "System Operators" acting as the interface between ATC and the aircraft. I am sure management sees this "Expensive" weakest leak as the next cockpit down sizing. The captain ...... he'll be on the ground behind a radar screen and in the aircraft a person with sops and sim time. The system monitor in the cockpit will have to break the glass cover to attempt to disconnect the autopilot and most likely face a mountain of paper work and several visits to THE OFFICE to explain why.
Progress and technology can and will change the definition of pilot / aviator . And I am sure the "PILOTS" of the future will look back at this time in aviation and marvell at what "PILOTS" actually had to do or could do or should I say were allowed to do.


SOPS and 80 Hrs. sim........who would have thought!!!!!!

[trainer too 2]

I agree with these plans. The 80 hours are sufficient to get the basic grasp but with the quality of the sims nowadays you get bette training in a sim than in the actual aircraft.

You have:
-The option to redo things easily
-Throw heavy problems in the decision process at the students that you would not do in the real aircraft
-Train as a crew rather than having the instructor right and the student left
-Log the situations on computers and video for post flight evaluation

Like with all things, there are always people who claim that it was better how we used to do it. They would still fly with the radio operator, flight engineer and navigator using the stars as our only means to navigate... or maybe the good old iron compass (the railroads!) Believe me if a slow moving body like ICAO starts saying things like this than the time is finally right!!
:ok:

[Sleeve Wing]

New for 2008.
Be the envy of your friends.
Fancy uniform - Big salary.

BE AN AIRLINE PILOT.
Multimedia ATPL Home Flying Course.
In House Examiners. Airline Placement Scheme

Be a Pilot on an Airbus A330 by 2009.

:yuk: :{

Just as an addendum to the tongue-in-cheek posting, checked an experienced 767 Captain out on a Tiger Moth yesterday.
Said it was the most difficult but rewarding flying he had ever done; - and that included the lot - difficult lookout, engine handling and the real hands on, tailwheel landings in a crosswind. First real solo 25 years on ?

Where am I going to get my future pilots ?
Rgds, Sleeve.

[Half a Mexican]

How is this going to affect training providers?
As far as I know there aint many who have got level D sims. What are they going to do buy them? Not likely.

And what of the self sponsored wannabe?

The reduction in the number of training providers able to offer the course, coupled the fact that this will be an integrated only course, will probably lead to a sharp increase in price. I’m guessing £75,000?

And then what? You’re spat out into the job market with 80 hours in your log book! Bar the very small percentage that find their way straight in to a multi crew job, the majority will be up a certain well known creek without a paddle…

Getting the first 1000 hours is hard enough now but under this system it will be almost impossible. Instruct? Cant. Tow gliders? Nope. Air taxi? Got to be kidding!

Under the current system you can build more hours and become more employable as time goes on. With the proposed system you don’t have a way of improving your employability, you just send off your paltry CV in hope. The problem is the longer it takes you to get a job the less “current” you become, you’ve not had a chance to get any flying practice done as the only thing you are qualified to fly is a level D sim. So all the “fresh” wannabes who finished their course 6 months after you now jump the job queue ahead of you.

So you’ve got a tiny window in which to get a job in a *very* tough market or your airline career is going to be over before it started. And guess what? You’re going to be the bottom of the food chain behind the many qualified experienced pilots who are after that shiny jet job.

Thanks ICAO.


--
HaM

[a380-500]

Ladies and Gentlemen!

Welcome on board of this B747-400. You would be glad to know that we still carry pilots on our aircraft. Our highly experienced Captain has a total of 5000 hours, out of whcih a whole 1000 on real airplanes. YOu will appreciate also the qualities of your first officer. He has completed his flyig licence at home on the latest version of MS FLight Simulator with flying colours. Now, sit back relax and enjoy the flight with us! BON VOYAGE...:)

[Splat]

Half a Mexican posts some interesting and valid points. My guess is that this option would only be available for sponsored cadets. Clearly, it's a high risk strategy for the self improver, or another nail in their coffin....

Why are the regulatory authorities so intent on stopping this route?

S

[Artificial Horizon]

What I find interesting is that Simulator time under this proposal seems to be highly regarded for training a completely inexperienced guy/girl to airline standard. I have just been trying to convince the CAA to let me count 10 hours of my sim training towards my 500 hours multicrew to get my ATPL unfrozen, but guess what, the CAA told me simulator time can't count because the multicrew simulator time is not up to the same standard as actual aircraft flying/training. What a complete load of ****.

[excrab]

It seems to be that the objections here are of cost and lack of experience, so how valid are those objections.

Currently in the UK we have a situation where low houred pilots are paying 50k + for integrated courses, being unable to find work so then paying for instructor courses and working for a pittance until they discover that the hours they are building won't get them an airline job, and then paying another 25K for a self sponsered type rating scheme in order to become an F/O on a 737 or an airbus.

It is difficult to guess how much such a scheme as that proposed would cost, but I suspect a lot less than the route I have outlined above. UK airlines who are able to shop around amongst the European training providers can currently get sim time (if they supply the instructor themselves) on a level D sim for £400 per hour. The airlines are buying a lot of sim time, remember that an airline with 500 pilots will use a minimum of 3000 hours sim time per year just for recurrent training/testing and can get a good deal.

At that price the 80 hours sim (which would be split between two trainees remember) would cost £16k plus the wages for a TRI/SFI and could be completed in a month - no delays for weather, so total cost of that part of the course about £19k per student.

Then you have the cost of 80 hours in a single engine a/c, and assume the worst case that it is a complex type and you pay £200 per hour because your being ripped off - another £16000.

So total cost of the flying/sim element £32,000, to which has to be added the cost of ground tution, exam fees, living expenses etc. So cost wise it could be about the same or even less than an integrated course at the moment, but as it would be tied into an airline you should come out of it type rated and with a job to go to without the additional cost of CTC, FI ratings, living on air as an instructor etc.

As far as the experience thing goes, as a self improver I have to admit that none of my light aircraft instructing experience was any use to me in the airline business until I became a line trainer, although some of the air taxi experience was. If this type of course was structured properly - PPL for 50 hours in a PA28R for example followed by 30 hours of procedural flying using airline SOPs possibly with the same instructors who were going to conduct the sim course then there would be an easy transition to the multi crew environment and the job of the sim instructor would be a lot easier - it is true, as has been stated already earlier that young 200 hour pilots in current flying practice are a lot easier to train than more experienced but not very experienced ones who have to try to forget single crew habits.

As far as the being able to land the airliner in the pilot incapacitation scenario I would suggest that a 200 hour F/O with 40 hours sim and 160 hours light a/c time as we have at the moment coming from sponsership schemes is no better off than a graduate from this type of course would be.

I suspect the major objection to this will come from current CPL,IR and FI schools without access to level D sims, and hours building instructors, but from the point of view of the airlines, the airline trainers and the students themselves the idea has a lot in its favour.

[Half a Mexican]

excrab,

I’m not disputing what you’re saying, you make some valid points. I’m just showing the objections from the point of a self sponsored wannabe.

Cost:

This new license will certainly reduce the cost of training – for airlines. They already have their own level D sims or at least access to heavily discounted time on them. There is no way that this would be going through if airlines were going to end up paying more!

However, for the self sponsored wannabe it will only raise the price. If only for the simple fact that it effectively rules out the modular route. Take OAT’s as an example; a calculator and quick poke around their website shows that the prices are as follows:

Modular: £31,180 – as this does not include a PPL and hour building lets add £10,000 and call it £41,180 for the whole ab-initio course.

This includes all skills tests, ATPL ground school and a combined MCC and JOT with 32 hours in a 737-400 sim.

Integrated: £61,500
This includes all the above plus about 8 extra hours in the sim.

The difference in cost? About 50%! Ok, they may not be identical courses but you get the same flight training from the same school and end up with the same license.

Yet Oxford charge 50% more for the integrated.

What I’m trying to show here is that while the cost to the training provider may or may not reduce, the price of the course to the student will not.

Today a wannabe can get his hands on a frozen ATPL for around £40,000ish. Under the proposed system I really doubt that anyone will be able to pick one up for less that £70,000ish.


Experience:

Will graduates of this new license be better pilots that those who graduate from the current system? I’ll leave that discussion to those with more knowledge and experience in this area.

What I am interested in is the fact that only a very small percentage of people get multi crew jobs straight after their training. Those that don’t get lucky have to scrape all the hours they can get and keep working their way up the food chain. This is certainly not easy but most of those who stick at it and keep plugging away building hours, experience and contacts will eventually get themselves a multi crew job.

But under the proposed system you *will not* have the opportunity to do this. The only thing you are qualified to fly is something multi crew. So if you don’t get a job pretty sharpish your skills and employability will keep on decaying…

What this system will create is a batch of desperate wannabes with 80 hours in their logbooks who absolutely have to get an airline job straight out of school or their careers are all but finished.

And we all know how hard that is to do.

--
HaM

[BillieBob]

But under the proposed system you *will not* have the opportunity to do this. The only thing you are qualified to fly is something multi crew. So if you don’t get a job pretty sharpish your skills and employability will keep on decaying… Actually, it's even worse than that - the only thing you will be qualified to fly is one type of multi-pilot aeroplane. There will be a minimum experience requirement before cross training to a different type is permitted so, if you do the course on the B737 and there are no B737 jobs around when you finish - bye-bye flying career.

Incidentally, the figure being discussed at the last ICAO meeting was 60 hours aircraft training, not 80!

[Splat]

So it then follows that it's not a route that the self sponsered would take. I would say that it's a cheap option for the cadets though.

S

[Penworth]

excrab, where did you get the 80 hours in the sim from? I heard it was going to be more like 180.

PW

[RVR800]

Yes its seems incredible that there has been this complete change of attitude since the glass cockpit was introduced.

The big driver is cost. I suppose the FAA regulated airlines will from 2006 have a cost advantage over JAA regulated ones as far as co-pilot traiing is concerned....

[excrab]

Penworth,

I have only read what has been on this thread, and added to that what little I recall when this was originally discussed last year, the 80 hours was a guess based on the current JAR CPL of 160 hrs (-80 hrs single = 80 hrs sim),

If it is to be 180 hrs sim I would agree with you that it would be impractical for a self improver or even an airline except perhaps the majors - although that would give a theoretical cost based on my estimates of 40k for the sim + 16k for the a/c = 56k + ground school etc, even if that added up to 75K it would still be cheaper than 61,500 for an Oxford integrated course followed by 23,000 for a self sponsored type rating at easjet.

BillieBob,

I understood that the original idea of the licence was that the sim would be done on the type which the trainee was going to fly, and as such would be tied in with an airline right from the start - it doesn't really work if people start offering the course on old 727 sims or whatever they happen to get their hands on cheaply. Thus the problem of only being able to fly one type doesn't arise as they would have a job assuming they completed the course. Also it should be remembered that all multi-crew type and Instrument ratings (thus effectively the ATPL) are specific to one type and need extensive groundschool and sim conversion to go from one to another, whatever the individuals experience.

The other thing which no one is mentioning is that whilst those who had not been sponsored wholly or partly by an airline may not have a crossover to multi-crew flying the same applies in reverse - thus someone who went down the modular route could find themself in a job market for instructors or single-crew air taxi pilots where salary levels were not artificially reduced by a ready supply of wannabee airline pilots prepared to work for a pittance in order to build the hours they needed to get a job with an airline.

[BillieBob]

excrab - I'm not aware that I wrote anything different to what you suggest. The course will lead to a rating on one type of multi-pilot aeroplane. This is fine for airlines training their own people but the point is that it will not be suitable for a self-sponsored trainee, as Half a Mexican suggests.

The course profile that was discussed at the last ICAO meeting was:

Phase 1 - 60 hours SEP aircraft training, with emphasis on "upset training and inverted flight". It is not clear whether this phase would allow the issue of a PPL.

Phase 2 (Basic) - 60 hours on a 'Level A' synthetic training device. It is not clear exactly what this means as there is no ICAO definition of a Level A STD. It is though that it will equate more-or-less to a JAA FNPT2 (No motion but full visuals and representative of a particular aircraft type)

Phase 3 (Intermediate) - 60 hours on a 'Level A' STD

Phase 4 (Advanced) - 60 hours on a Level D STD. This phase includes a type rating. It is not clear whether any base training is envisaged or whether the type rating will effectively be ZFTT.

Conversion to a second and subsequent types will not be permitted until a certain level of line experience (amount to be decided) has been gained on the initial type.

[RVR800]

Will the Europeans follow the lead...?