Low time copilots in airlines

[Coloco]

For background...I trained and worked in Australia as a Commercial pilot in GA...

At the time I thought impossible to get into an airline anywhere in the world until thousands of hours were logged, many in multi engine IFR, etc., mainly due to "experience and safety of the operation". I was turned away in many job applications due low hours (1500 at the time) even in GA.

To my surprise, there are quite many airlines around the world which take up 200 hour IFR pilots train them up and sit them with proper supervision on the right hand seat of medium size turbo props (eg ATRs, D8, F50) and even some jets without it being a major problem (to safety).

What do you think, are we far too complicated in Australia or is is just the oversupply of pilots that make the "hour ladder" so high? Do you think it is necesarily unsafe to sit a low time pilot like this as a copilot? Mind you, I dont see planes falling every day where I am!! Quite the contrary, its a very good operation given many difficulties!

I remember it was difficult even flying a medium single engine piston without quite some 100´s of hours....

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

Why would they look at a low time pilot when they could get an experienced one?

[haughtney1]

There are a couple of schools of thought to this one...

I think Oz is a bit of an unusual one in the world at the moment(a bit like NZ) in that there is a massive oversupply of qualified CPL's that given the right kind of training, would quite happily slot into an F/O upgrade. What they tend to do in Oz is arbitrarily restrict large numbers of candidates on the basis of their experience..or rather lack of experience.

Depending apon where you come from, where you train, what kind of license you have etc etc will determine whether or not you will have to soldier on for years in GA instructing or doing charter/Air Taxi work rather than gaining a position with an airline.
In Europe at the moment it is quite possible to complete your flight training with a fresh license (wet ink still apparent) and be commencing your first TP or jet type rating course the very next week.

Its horses for courses, I left NZ/Oz with 1500hrs or so and was able to get a job in the UK on a Kingair..then was offered a job on the 757, all in the space of 3 months after converting my license conversion, and to be honest it wasn't hard:ok:

So really the question isn't about it being any harder in Oz (in point of fact given the predominantly good weather and comparatively uncongested airspace..it can be a whole lot easier!) its just that there are so many other pilots with greater experience who appear to potential employers as better qualified:ok:

[DirectAnywhere]

It might be worth checking this out.

http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#31

There are moves undrway by ICAO to introduce a competency based Multi Crew Pilot Licence. In short, they take an ab-initio trainee give them 240 hours in a sim or aircraft. As a minimum, the hours for a PPL (!) must be flown in an aircraft (C172 etc.) with additional aircraft hours for night, IFR and upset recovery.

Voila!!! Instant F/O. Plug them into the right hand seat of your A320 or 737 and off you go. Proposed timeline for this is 23 November 2006.

Interestingly, Jetstar Asia has been doing this with QF cadets anyway and I would imagine they're not the only ones.

This is the other end of the age extension to 65. ICAO and the airlines are seriously worried there won't be enough pilots out there and are desperatley trying to increase the pool of available pilots.

[PLovett]

I think the difference between Europe and Australia is that the former is specifically training people for multi-crew transport aircraft operations. I think it is also a growing trend in the USA if you look at the number of training organisations there offering ab-initio to FO slot training. :ok:

I also think it will become the norm in Australia despite CASA best efforts to ensure that pilots are properly trained to fly a DC-3. :} There is a large number of aspiring airline pilots in Australia but how many are suitably qualified to fly transport multi-crew without further training? With airlines trying to cut costs at every corner I suspect they will push for the airline specific training that Europe uses and is becoming common in the USA.

I also suspect that numbers will decline as any glamour that the profession has left will be totally erased with new workplace agreements. In addition, the projected growth of airline numbers in Asia may also see a large number of aspiring pilots go there instead of facing the increasing financial hurdles imposed by airlines here. :mad:

[disco_air]

Is there not an issue with cockpit gradient here?

Just a thought, since it puts high experience skippers with FO's who have relatively very little operational decision making experience.

..Disco

[Capt Claret]

Fortunately I haven't had to look for a flying job form many years now. My perception is that over the 20odd years I've been in the industry, there has been an over supply of pilots, therefore employers can seek high levels of aeronautical experience for the vacancies.

If we were to experience the ratio of CPL/ATPL pilots to job that many European nations do, I suspect that "experience comensurate with age" would be out the window, quick as a flash.

[gas-chamber]

Today's highly-automated airplanes are fine for low-houred F/O's who have been properly trained. Although I have never flown them, I bet that after 18 months or so on a 777 or A330, most F/O's who started with 200 hours and who were diligent, would fly the thing via the automatics as well as the average Captain. For this and future generation airplanes, the specialised multi-crew licence is the way the industry will go. Let us insist on very thorough simulator sessions to get their juices flowing in emergency scenarios, because they will never have had the thrill of a cylinder head coming off the old Lycoming or a missing landing gear green light on finals.
However, operators of more primitive equipment will always be better off getting F/O's with a good G.A. background. For as long as that supply exists in Australia, the USA and Canada where there is a big enough gene pool, G.A. should remain the preferred source. By the time the supply dries up (if ever) the wonderful flying machines that need these old-fashioned skills will be dangling from museum ceilings and I will be retired - hooray!

[tinpis]

Although I have never flown them, I bet that after 18 months or so on a 777 or A330, most F/O's who started with 200 hours and who were diligent, would fly the thing via the automatics as well as the average Captain.

In my day an FO had to do that to qualify to line.

They've lowered the requirements??:uhoh: :sad:

[chimbu warrior]

Direct Anywhere..........I have also heard a little about this Multi Crew Pilot Licence and am a little surprised at some of the proposed features........

I do stress that although it is proposed that some Australian flying schools participate in training these students, they are from other countries (I believe China and India, but am not certain), and hence I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS BECOMING THE NORM IN AUSTRALIA.

As I understand it, the candidate will graduate with a combinnation of sim and aircraft time, however ALL experience will have been gained in the RH seat. Additionally, the candidate will NEVER have flown solo! All experience will be a "multi-crew" situation. Furthermore, these candidates will then proceed to the RHS of a B737 or A320, and after as little as 12 months experience in that role, may be considered for a command upgrade.

In some respects this mirrors the military approach to training; tailor the course to the role for which the student is being trained.

I have discussed this with a couple of people who are to be heavily involved in the training process, and AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS, they agree that this potentially can work quite well. As there is no intention of these candidates ever flying a light aircraft (or operating single-pilot) after completing their training, even the crustiest old instructors agree that a great deal of the current training syllabus (as we know it at least) has no relevance to the role envisaged for these students. Thus the course they undertake will be specifically tailored for an airline pilot position, concentrating on CRM and crew concepts.

It certainly has the potential to dramatically change the training scene. In fact I predict that within a few years there will 2 alternative ways to learn to fly, one offering the student the option of gaining a PPL and flying recreationally (and thus being very similar to the current curriculum) whilst the alternative course will be strictly focussed on training future airline pilots.

My only question, where will GA get pilots in future? Even though much of GA is facing a difficult future, it is reasonable to assume that the RFDS and many other areas of GA simply must continue to provide services in a country as vast as Australia. Or will the RFDS be "outsourced" to the military?

[tinpis]

My only question, where will GA get pilots in future? Even though much of GA is facing a difficult future, it is reasonable to assume that the RFDS and many other areas of GA simply must continue to provide services in a country as vast as Australia. Or will the RFDS be "outsourced" to the military?





Hopefully their "clientele" will be moved into a proper town.

[neville_nobody]

I would be interested to hear a point of view from a Jetstar Captain on how well the cadets have gone as FO's over there with basically minimal experience. I'd also like to know how much extra training was invested into them to get them up to standard.

I think a significant example against zero time FO's would be the accident in Bahrain where an FO sat there and watched a Captain drive a perfectly serviceable aeroplane into the ground without saying anything. I don't think any FO who has come from a GA or military background would let anyone do that to them.

The other issue here is where on earth are the higher end charter and regional airlines going to get crews from?? Assuming that the pay levels will remain as they are, who will be willing to fork out big dollars for a license to never get that money back and to live in places such as Port Hedland and the like? Without the carrot of an airline job somewhere down the line what will be the point?

[Pass-A-Frozo]

.... I also suspect that numbers will decline as any glamour that the profession has left will be totally erased with new workplace agreements....

I'm not so sure.. after all, many men every Friday night go out on the town telling lovely lasses they meet that they are Dolphin Trainers, and I'm sure they don't get paid much :p

[gas-chamber]

Tinpis - in "my day", which obviously precedes "your day" there was no way that the new F/O could have met the same standard as the crusty old Captains on some of the gear we flew. And back then the price of entry was at least 1500 hours, so we did have some idea of how to fly. Sure, we struggled down the ILS on the old cross needles and gyros over on the Captain's side of the panel, and got the thing into tolerance at minima, but hey, they did make allowances for our inexperience. Out on the line we served our apprenticeship with some good guys and some not so good, but they all knew far more than we did, just because they had been around a bit longer. Way back then we co-pilots were only issued second class endorsements in recognition of that fact. Anybody who aims to train a 200 hour pilot to the standard that can be achieved by a 5000 hour pilot will need to synthesise experience and put it in the new guy's medication.
The RAAF may be able to train pilots to command a BBJ and fly the Prime Minister around with only 1500 hours total experience, sitting alongside a copilot with maybe 500 hours experience, but they have a budget that allows virtually every one of their hours up to that point to be training hours. Civil airlines don't train with anywhere near such intensity - they want their pilots out earning revenue. The average line flight is a total non-event and that is the way the passengers and shareholders expect it.
So, yes, we will have 200 hour copilots who have done the specialised multi-crew licence, but if anyone claims them to be at Captain standard the day they qualify, then yes, Captain standards will have been lowered.
Heaven forbid, next thing because both sides of the cockpit are equally skilled and qualified, both will have to be paid the same.

[The Bunglerat]

In answer to the original question, I would suggest it is both an over-supply of talent AND a prevailing attitude (which sadly seems to be unique to Oz aviation) that you have to be one step away from having flown the Space Shuttle before operators of any high performance machinery will give you the time of day.

There is nothing magic or mysterious about operating turbo-prop or jet equipment. With the various degrees of automation in a modern jet cockpit, not to mention the more rugged and reliable nature of turbines over pistons, one could argue that they are in fact simpler to operate (just as long as you don't cook them on start-up). The general consensus would seem to be one of speed and time management, i.e. learning to stay ahead of an aeroplane travelling at 8 miles a minute instead of 3.

However with a comprehensive, quality training programme, there is no reason why any GA driver cannot successfully make the leap to this kind of operation, even a low hour cadet. It has been done successfully many times over - which leaves me all the more perplexed as to why this Oz attitude continues to persist that you have to be some kind of superman. As for the Airbus crash in the middle east mentioned earlier, aeroplanes have and will continue to crash from time to time - irrespective of crew experience levels. Granted, experience (or lack of) often rears its head as the culprit, but there are plenty of other factors which can and do contribute to a prang.

What's Flight Safety's motto? "The best safety device in an aircraft is a well trained pilot."

...Not necessarily an experienced one.

[tinpis]

Gosh gas chamber.
Thank you for that.
I feel young again.

No one can chuck a Douglas 3 around with 200 hours thats silly.

But you should see these young buggers programming the FMC with their left hand while lookng out the window and eating their crew meal.

I guess there are not many of the crusty old buggers left these days .
Im sure if there were they would find the genteel lifestyle of poking buttons a much more satisfying way to make a quid(all be it a pretty sh#tty quid in oz)
I agree with what what Chimbu says train the monkey to play the organ dont try to retrain a totally stuffed up unit after years of abuse in GA.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Then don't expect too much of these guys on a dark, wet, windy night when the ground based navaids are US or a system failure has left them cat 1 capable and the weather everywhere handy is crap and they are on min fuel.

All well and good to suggest they can programme FMCs and drive an MCP as good as the captain but that is a small part of the job.

I sense more than one young guy above grossly underestimating what the job is about and overestimating there ability to perform it. Plenty of well qualified and experienced pilots, both generally and jet wise, fail upgrade training or fail to pass initial FO training.

I wonder how far they can dumb down this profession of ours before it bites with a unacceptable accident rate.:ugh:

It's all well and good to say that 99% of the time it's boring and any moron can do it...we get trained and paid for the 1%.

[And Then]

The outfit I fly with just had a couple of cadets fail their final check. Oh well, lets zero hour them and start again! :\

150 hour A330 F/O's. It's dangerous, transgresses modern airline safety culture but the beancounters in Asia love it!

[haughtney1]

It's all well and good to say that 99% of the time it's boring and any moron can do it...we get trained and paid for the 1%.
You calling me a moron Chimbu??:}
This multi-crew licence worries me..where I work we effectively have it with CTC cadets who go onto the babybus with about 270hrs..50 or 60 of that is PIC. A few of them that I know freely admit that for the first 200-300hrs of line flying they are effectively a liability:uhoh: There is plenty of concern in europe regarding this licence, particularly from the airlines, its the regulatory authorities that seem to be keen on it.

[On speed on profile]

Tinpis. By Douglas 3 do you mean DC3? If not, disregard (im not a spotter) but if so, I know of a pilot who had not much more than 200 hours when he was given the RHS ticket for the old girl. I didnt see his smile that day but i bet it didnt fit through the cargo door!

It was definately "Right place at the right time" but he passed the requirements and not in a sim so I think it was well deserved. I bet there are a few old crustys and other DC3 wanabees who are thinking, :mad:! right now! Oh well.

[Cloud Cutter]

They don't just take any 200 hr pilot off the street!

The reason airlines like Easyjet and Ryan Air can afford to take low time pilots is that they are highly selective right from the start, and then trained by the very best flight schools who specialise in cadet training. They come out of training more suited to airline flying than your average 2000 hr GA pilot, simply because that has been the focus right from the start.

Not everyone is suitable for this big jump. It takes intelligence, natural flying aptitude, and most of all, an ability to learn very quickly.

The MCC is something that's been mooted by the NZCAA for a couple of years now. Unfortunately, I don't think it will work in the current NZ system where pilots require several years of GA work, prior to joining an airline.

[haughtney1]

Cloud, you may be surprised at the CTC process, yes there are parts that seem onerous academically...but these can be studied for. The rest of the process is such that it identifies desirable qualities, many of which, joe average possesses in spades.
Don't believe all the marketing hype, most of the CTC people are no different to anyone else....and its heartening to know that the 270hr graduates carry all the same faults of overconfidence/under confidence that any pilot of that experience level has.
The real difference is the targeted training, but ostensibly until they leave Hamilton to return to the UK to complete exams and T Rating courses, they are like any other low time pilot:ok:
By the way I had this VERY conversation with an F/O (CTC cadet) dead-heading back from Africa the other day.:ok:

[Cloud Cutter]

H1

Yep, they're certainly human too. But i've met an awefull lot of them over the past few years and they seem to be of a similar breed. I would imagine overconfidence would be the biggest issue, probibly fine after beeing knocked down a few pegs by their training capt:ok:

[haughtney1]

I would imagine overconfidence would be the biggest issue, probibly fine after beeing knocked down a few pegs by their training capt

Tis very very true...I'll be interested to hear off Luke when he finished his 319 course, he may have a few things to say..as I think there mayby a few on the course with him:}

[tinpis]

OSP yes DC3.

Of course there is no GA to speak of in Europe where any sort of pilot can be plucked from hence the need for carriers to have a cadet scheme.
I doubt I will live to see the day that happens in Oz.

When tin was in Pommyland many years ago I was offered a direct entry command on a biz jet(pending licence changeover) with very little jet time '
Admittedly it was the "DC3" of jets the HS 125. :hmm:

[Hanz Blix]

This multi crew Licence does bother me alot, not for the fact that you have a young 200 TT pilot sitting next to you that might be cocky (can be slapped out of them) but what happens wen the workload comes on in a non standard situation?

Personally I can see the young one load sheeding, in what form I don't know but either way its suddenly become a single pilot aircraft. Not exactly safe!

It all just seems a little unnerving from where I'm sitting.:uhoh:

[Chesty Morgan]

This could be why we practice pilot incapacitations during every recurrent sim. Just a thought.

We all have to start somewhere. I started with 165TT and now 6 years later I'm flying with guys who have the same experience I had.

And there's a word EXPERIENCE, how else does one get it??

Give the young 'uns a chance I say!

[drshmoo]

Id prefer some ex GA person whos had some REAL experience with the right attitude than a 200 hour grad with the right attitude. You cannot simulate the learning of decision making.

[aero979]

I just received my ATPL, over 2600 hours, Qantas wouldnt even test me:(
But cadets come on in!

[PLovett]

aero979

Read the above posts and you may understand why. QANTAS takes the view that if you have too many hours in GA you will have leant too many bad habits that are expensive to remove.

To some posters, no-one is saying that a low-time FO who has come through airline specific training is competent to command that aircraft but then again is any FO who has just come out of GA (chuckles, will exclude you from that but your route to your current slot was rather circuitous. :ok:

However, something I heard, albeit second-hand, from a Ryanair training capitan was that initially the low-time pilots did have a hard time of it but after a couple of months there was little to no difference to those who had more experience before commencing.

It is all in the level and quality of training. The subsequent experience may or may not be relevant. It may only give you a stock of war stories so that in the future you can bore your FO to death. :}

[aero979]

Well, I know I have REAL experience. And I know who I would prefer up the front when I am travelling.

[And Then]

Hands up who has flown with cadets on the Flt Deck? It takes my airline eight years to bring a cadet up to a 50% chance of passing command course. The command course in my airline has a single pilot IFR slant to it, because line captains are unofficial training captains for cadets. Cadets will get five times more training than Direct Entry pilots, who come up for command in just a few years. Direct Entry pilots with military or GA experience, put through a rigorous interview process, are a far better proposition. Cadets at my airline are paid 50% less than line pilots. Watch out!

[Capt. On Heat]

and then trained by the very best flight schools who specialise in cadet training :D

Cloud, you're surely not suggesting this includes CTC?? :eek:

[Jet_A_Knight]

if you have too many hours in GA you will have leant too many bad habits that are expensive to remove.

This mentality does the rounds quite alot. What a load of bollocks!

Not all GA pilots are hacks out there manifesting 'bad habits'. There are plenty that work and study f@cking hard to adapt to changes in situation, equipment and environment, and work toward being the best and most dilligient aviator that they can be; all in preparation for the challenge of moving into a jet transport. You use your brains, work your @rse off and absorb the training, and swap one set of SOPS for another set of SOPS.

I have said this before. Those that don't have experience denigrate it.

Yes, you CAN put a low time, no background guy into the RHS - it is done in Europe all the time.

It's all fun and games until 'good times go bad'.

[PLovett]

Jet A Knight

The comment was made to me by a senior C & T captain. I repeat it for what it may be worth. It was not made in reference to any application by me to that airline so it had no personal conoctation.

There are plenty that work and study f@cking hard to adapt to changes in situation, equipment and environment, and work toward being the best and most dilligient aviator that they can be; all in preparation for the challenge of moving into a jet transport. You use your brains, work your @rse off and absorb the training, and swap one set of SOPS for another set of SOPS.

This is quite true and I have seen many do just that but isn't also true that under stress some pilots will revert to initial training habits which may be quite inappropriate in a transport category aircraft. I suggest that this may be one of the reasons that some airlines are looking more to specific training from the outset.

Incidentally, I am not denying the value of experience at all. Perhaps in the ideal situation pilots will be trained from the outset the way the airlines want and then they get experience in the GA world before returning to the fold. It may be that if there was a sizeable GA in Europe then it would be done that way but there's not nor will be.

[Cloud Cutter]

Cloud, you're surely not suggesting this includes CTC??

Are you suggesting it doesn't?

These airlines aren't stupid. If a school like CTC wasn't cutting it, they wouldn't last long. Most of it comes down to shear organisation, that you won't find at your local aero club.

[Oh that's super!]

What do you think, are we far too complicated in Australia or is is just the oversupply of pilots that make the "hour ladder" so high? Do you think it is necesarily unsafe to sit a low time pilot like this as a copilot? Mind you, I dont see planes falling every day where I am!! Quite the contrary, its a very good operation given many difficulties!


Supply and demand, I'd say.

As for the safety - I'd hate to see an inexperienced captain combined with inexperienced FO. Then again, an overly-experienced captain would worry me too - as in incapacitation. :}

[Cloud Cutter]

That's a good point. What would happen on the off chance the T/C karked it at rotate on day one?:\

[haughtney1]

All the misplaced confidence..bravado..slicked back hair..expensive sunglasses...open collared shirts..oh and the breitling wrist-piece, would evaporate in the blink of an eye...or fall off in the frantic haste to engage the auto-pilot:}

[Capt. On Heat]

Are you suggesting it doesn't?

Yes I am. I know instructors who work there and have had the pleasure of seeing some of their up and coming cadets in action first hand. I am not going to slag off either. All I think is that having fluffy jet posters on the wall and skewing training towards airline flying from the start does not make the best aircraft pilot at the end of the day. I remember when I started flying the crusty old instuctor said, "In the left seat boy because we're training you to be the Captain." Isn't that the whole point? An F/O at a company is generally expected to assume a command at some point. And I'd say they're also expected to have done a fair bit/some PIC beforehand. You learn a lot about being the guy where the buck stops and then as a Co a whole lot more including comparisons wih your previous PIC experience. It's not about being the most experienced pilot before you go Co in a jet but cripes have some!

What would happen on the off chance the T/C karked it at rotate on day one? Exactly! A pilot who had previous Turbo-prop or jet or even just lots of PIC will be far better equipped to deal with such a situation. And to be blunt isn't that what everyone (the public, the regulatory bodies and fellow aviators) expects of a First Officer??? You are second in command!

under stress some pilots will revert to initial training habits
If the sh*t hits the fan and I'm down the back I'd like the pilot to revert to flying the damn aeroplane! If he/she didn't learn that at the start then I'd be a worried punter!

[chimbu warrior]

Some interesting comments.............

Generally I too would prefer to fly with someone who has some "life experience", but must also acknowledge that role-specific training also has merit.

I can also readily identify with Jet-A's comment regarding learning a new set of SOP's; it is made infinitely more difficult if you are also required to "unlearn" another set of SOP's.

I guess it will be interesting to see what the next few years produce.

[maui]

Having worked with F/O's from three streams (G/A, cadet, military), my oberservations.

The 250 hour F/O's surprise me. Working in a difficult environment is a "busy" cockpit (MD80). I have often reflected on how would have compared at the same stage of my development. I am in awe.

Generally they have good procedural skills, and whilst all is going well their performance is fine. Handling skills are generally adequate.

Situational awareness and decision making, are an entirely different kettle of fish. They basically do not exist. Those skills can only be learned with guidance and with exposure.

A few years down the track and I am seeing these guys now with a lot more exposure, now on a wide body FBW and soon to undertake command training, on a "maggot"

In summary now I would suggest that most have refined their handling skills, but generally situational awareness and decision making is still lacking. In many cases dangerously so, given their imminent upgrade.

The military, in my experience, have, initially, demonstrated a higher level of handling skills (away from the ground) but have been indocrinated with a narrow channel rational process (mission focused). Coupled with an absolute belief in the superiority of their military training, and their allegience to the "corps", they are not easy candidates for attitude or procedural change. Once again situational awareness is less than desireable.

For my money, give me the guy who has been out on his own, working in an often difficult environment, and relying on his own judgement to keep an operation on the rails. He may not do it correctly all the time, but he will generally give you no concern as to his ability to keep the paint on the aluminium and off the terrain. But he will have a real good idea of what is happening around him/her.

My three cents

Maui

[Like This - Do That]

Most of it comes down to shear organisation, that you won't find at your local aero club.

Nope, you'll tend to find "shear organistaion" in the shearing shed ......

I'll get me coat

[Cloud Cutter]

Thanks, I'll add it to my list of words I can't spell. It will be in good company.

[jetrider444]

AERO979

Seems you have a pretty low opinion of cadets..............

[nike]

Nice post Maui