FAA Head Concerned With Cockpit Experience

[Shillin3]

FAA Head Concerned With Cockpit Experience | Pilotbug (http://www.pilotbug.com/?p=487)

FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt, addressed ALPA’s annual Air Safety Forum and expressed concern for the quality of experience of captains in some of today’s airlines. “There are some airlines out there with senior pilots who have three years under their belt, and, unlike back then — they are going right into jets, flying long days in some of the busiest airspace in the world.” Babbitt says in his speech, “I’m not saying that you’ve got to have 10 or 15 thousand hours before you’re worth your salt, but there is something to be said for having been flying around the system a few seasons.”

Babbitt continues and states that even these “seasoned” pilots must use their collective knowledge and mentor the rest of the pilot group to enhance safety. “This needs to become part of our professional DNA. If you’ve got experience and you’re not sharing it, you’re doing a disservice to our profession.”

He also acknowledged the problem of fatigue and that the FAA is in the process of addressing it. Flight-duty rules will be reconsidered after a study is completed by September 1st, where it will be submitted to the FAA. It will then be passed to the DOT and after 90 days, sent for public comment.

[Bealzebub]

He is right to be concerned. Couple this with the vanity publishing brigade paying to occupy the right hand seat and the clock is ticking. What is perhaps a little strange is that the person raising these concerns happens to be the Regulator in charge! Clearly the "buck" suffers little deceleration as it passes over his desk!

[Will Fraser]

So far, we like the cut of Captain Babbitt's Jib.

[Mercenary Pilot]

Babbitt continues and states that even these “seasoned” pilots must use their collective knowledge and mentor the rest of the pilot group to enhance safety.Surely this is what the FAA is actually there for?

So he expects seasoned pilots to do this out of the goodness of their heart while earning $40,000 per annum and getting a legal 5-6 hours sleep on a layover.

“This needs to become part of our professional DNA. If you’ve got experience and you’re not sharing it, you’re doing a disservice to our profession.”And the FAA have done a total disservice to the industry by pandering to airlines profits instead of flight safety and allowing it to get into this state in the first place.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens but lets say I won't be surprised if the proposed legislation gets completely watered down.

[cessnapuppy]

What is perhaps a little strange is that the person raising these concerns happens to be the Regulator in charge! Clearly the "buck" suffers little deceleration as it passes over his desk! And the FAA have done a total disservice to the industry by pandering to airlines profits instead of flight safety and allowing it to get into this state in the first place. Please, recognize code speak when you hear it! - He's calling/begging for help and he needs YOU the pilots to get it! There's a heavy status quo that needs to be upended for this kind of change to take place, to cut out the incestuous relationship with some parts of faa-middle management and the airlines they are to oversee (a few short years after their tenure with the FAA go on to cushy positions in-you-know-where) Obviously, the reins of economy, industry and finance have been untended by any kind of oversight for at least the last 8 years in favor of 'unfettered deregulation' and 'make money at all costs' - by calling on senior pilots to speak up, that gives them the 'groundswell' of backing to go up against the SouthWestArlines and their ilk - failure to recruit you pilots FIRST would only have any assistance with duty time legislation,etc, be cast as "socialist govt meddling", shut down (and shot down) before it can even begin.

[Bad Robot]

And WHAT Exactly, is classified as a Seasoned Pilot?
I'd say the "Industry" has got exactly the Seasoned Pilots they are looking for, otherwise they would not be allowed the upgrade in the first place...................:hmm:
If the FAA and CAA are not happy with this, then they should amemd the criteria accordingly.:ugh:

BR.

[Will Fraser]

You can accept it as the invitation to recapture and reinvigorate your own authority, or you can whine and watch the bullies keep the ball. Your call.

If it's a trick, you've lost exactly.......what ??

[Huck]

As Lorenzo used to say, if they ain't qualified to be captains at 1500 hours, don't give them ATP's....

[wongsuzie]

I recall the accident at Pusan.The commander was 30 years old and had total of 6000 hrs.

By industry standards thats young.

[Ct.Yankee]

For those of us, the old experienced aviators, retired or soon to be,
should remember that the minimum flight time required by most of the
US airlines at the time( 1965- 1968) was a Commercial Lic. with an Instrument rating.
(read 180 hrs. SEL, inst. rating)
In fact some of the majors hired zero time pilots.
The Administrator was hired at the Wings of Man in the same period
as myself. I know I was an FLAP (F****** light airplane pilot) and I
believe he was of the same experience level.

[machone]

It is time in this industry that people stop trying to put people in boxes. Each man/ woman is different 6000hrs in command might be ok but not if all on a Cessna 150. Command is relative to experience for the task/ route/ and the passengers to be carried. Low cost with no support from anyone is very different from a major carrier who has ops/eng/ramp/ etc.
Is it not time that safety should be the most important concern of all.
All the authorities should consider there actions. If nothing will happen then nature will take over and we will be reading about more accidents/ incidents as cost are cut to make a quick buck.

[RB311]

Why ARE so many planes falling out of the sky? A spate of disastrous crashes reveals one terrifying common flaw...


Read more: Why ARE so many planes falling out of the sky? A spate of disastrous crashes reveals one terrifying common flaw... | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1205129/Why-ARE-planes-falling-sky-A-spate-disastrous-crashes-reveals-terrifying-common-flaw-.html#ixzz0NlxPkARP)

[Clandestino]

they are going right into jets, flying long days in some of the busiest airspace in the world

:hmm: So now when the man in charge recognized their potential for creating large holes in the landscape when mishandled, are CRJs and ERJs now officially jets and not commuters? If they are, will it reflect on the remuneration of their flightcrews?

If you’ve got experience and you’re not sharing it, you’re doing a disservice to our profession

Now that's plain insulting. We've been hangartalking ever since the first hangar was erected. Problem is that nowadays stories of the old largelly fall on the deaf ears. You can not explain basic aerodynamics to someone who has problems with basic physics and mathematics and got his shiny licence by learning multiple choice tests' answers by heart. Does this FAA fellow have any aviation background at all?

I recall the accident at Pusan.The commander was 30 years old and had total of 6000 hrs.

By industry standards thats young.

You're barking up the wrong tree. Now please remind me what was the experience level of a certain fine Dutch fellow who attempted to take off without clearance and as a result 583 people perished. Or last captain of TC-GEN. Or last captain of HB-IXM.

Why ARE so many planes falling out of the sky?

Because of gravity. And, as Tom Yorke observed, it always wins. If you find this answer trivial or marginaly amusing, congratulations for not being quite dumbed down.

[Pontius]

There are some airlines out there with senior pilots who have three years under their belt, and, unlike back then — they are going right into jets

What is it with the bloody septics and their fascination with being ever-so experienced before you can fly, gasp, jets :rolleyes:

Jets are easy. They've got decent performance compared to some of those turbo-props you see valiantly struggling airbourne and they get up high, away from all those nasty icing layers and bumpy clouds. All the bolleaux about high speeds etc is just macho BS. If the scenario calls for 250 bananas, you fly it at 250 bananas, simple as.

Likewise, I know our US 'cousins' don't like 'mere' cadets going into the right seat of jets because they haven't done all the hard graft in a prop thingy and obviously don't have a clue what they're doing. Again, just 'green-eyed' envy. I've flown with plenty of 200 hour-ish FOs and they were great. They knew their stuff, were enthusiastic, keen to learn and hand flew very well. Of course I passed on my vast experience :), who wouldn't, as that is one of the roles as the Captain.

This article writes a lot and says little. If you've got the experience to gain an ATPL then you're good to go. If you've got the experience your company requires, then you're good to go. Just because some desk jockey doesn't like the idea of a 20 something captain, sitting in the left seat with 'only' 3000 hours doesn't mean he's right :hmm:.

PS: No I'm not an ex-cadet but have flown next to plenty in both seats and very happy with them, even with low experience levels.

Cue 411A with, 'you can't possibly fly something as complicated as a jet without having first amassed several thousand flying hours'

[Bealzebub]

I've flown with plenty of 200 hour-ish FOs and they were great. They knew their stuff, were enthusiastic, keen to learn and hand flew very well.

That is very true! It is a lovely warm, short sleeve shirt environment. The thing often lacking is the fear factor. That moment in your experienced past when you frightened yourself just enough to realize you shouldn't do it again.

200 hours and stuff and enthusiasm, isn't really enough time or experience to have incorporated this ingredient into the mix. They may not have frightened themselves yet, but one day they will! That first time shouldn't be with 250 passengers in the back and another 200 hour-ish cadet in the right seat, who knows his stuff and is enthusiastic, and keen to learn and flies very well!

[RAT 5]

There's a slight cross of threads here. In JAA land there is talk of going from zero to full type rating in 1 go. The days of 250hrs single spam-can flying including 50hrs VFR navigation etc., and for the lucky ones 2 hrs aeros, the 50hrs airways training have long gone. It's now reduced to 150hrs total. G/H must have suffered. The talk is for an MPA type rating with much conducted in a sim. Do I hear 'cost recuduction' as the driving force. The supporters of the scheme would say that if you want an airline pilot then train an airline pilot, not a crop sprayer. However, if you want an air-taxi pilot or a quality GA pilot, anything from a Beech KingAir to a GV or any golbal biz-jet, how do you train and licence them? They live in a different world requiring different skills. I wonder if the various CEO's sitting in the back of their private golbal flying gin-palaces realise how low the total time of many of their pilots is.
You talk of cockpit experience. If you have been trained properly, and fly in a solid airline with a quality training culture, then the modern button pushing FMC will generally do the job you were trained for. the cadets are efficient, keen and become very competant quickly, especially in the density of modern short-haul multisector flying day. Long-haul cadets are a different story. My experience of the quality cadets is they are fine everyday nothing goes wrong pilots. A straight forward standard day is a breeze.
However, you are now getting captains of 300ohrs, only seen 1 airline, 1 type of operation and perhaps had little go wrong in their apprenticeship. In the LoCo's there are no station managers and engineers at every destination to make 'those' decisions. The captain is there and it's his call. Is 4 years exposure enough?
15 years ago the norm in charter was 5000hrs or 4000hrs 6 years in the company and an above average continual performance. That would generally have had 7000hrs total cockpit hrs as a minimum. The flying world is more congested; the commercial/time pressures are more; the airfields often flown to are less euquiped (although the Greek islands of 20 years ago were pretty spartan). But the cadets are used to ATC, Radar, ILS's etc. Some of the more out of the way places are a handfull when left to do it on your own. TOTAL cockpit time can now be as little as 4000hrs on type with TOTAL company experience 4 years. Is there enough experience to make those decisions when needed? Is there enough experience to resist the bullying of so many outside influences? Is there always the experience there in the RHS to ask their opinion when meeting a new dilema.

Total hrs to fly a jet is not such a big deal, but total experience to be a captain in todays world is another question.
To echo a previous writer; I was flying regularly over the Alps in winter from N.Europe to land in N.Italy. Nice big shiny jet up above the weather with all the grunt needed to rise above most challenges. We had a minimum of 6000hrs in the cockpit. I jump-seated once on a Saab 340 MXP to BSL, in summer. Beautiful. We talked about the winter. MSA 16000' on special routes; PNR's; engine out escape routes between various wpt's. etc. etc. A whole other world and somewhat scary. I've also been over some mountians in a PA-31 and only just being able to maintain cruise speed at clb power due ice build up. Losing a donk was not an option. These guys had turbo-props; a real confidence booster, but still their SE ceiling was below MORA. They had to do a lot of pre-flight planning depending on Wx. and then in-flight monitoring was never ending. Total cockpit time was 3000hrs. Captains were 2500 total. The oldest person in the crew was the senior cabin crew of 2.
The same must be true of some operations around the highlands & islands. The lowest experience is flying in the most dangerous conditions with the most under-powered a/c. Market forces dictated that, but the operators of big shiny jets could perhaps do more. Some will say markets forces will apply there also. Cheaper pay yourself training, lower salaries and attract the low experience and promise them the holy grail; a shiny jet and possible command beore they're 30. Perhaps the FAA are waking up. I would have thought it was the insurance companies who would have more of a say. Should they have allowed 5000hrs to be reduced to 3000hrs?
Horses for courses, perhaps.

[wayupthere]

What about all these "highly experienced" captains who have been around the block so many times they no longer feel they need to be alert????
I've flown with many in a ..wait for it.. a JET who are more interested in the sport page of their paper while intercepting the ILS in busy airspace then watching the airplane :ugh:

does the fact they have a bigger logbook than others make them better pilots? I think not...

[Intruder]

I will grant the claim that modern jets are easier to fly than older piston or turboprop airplanes WHEN EVERYTHING IS WORKING.

However, it is the times when things are going to sh!t that experience counts. That is when canned procedures no longer apply, and the pilot has to think, plan, fly, and review contingencies all at the same time. That is when a 150-hour MPA will likely fall apart rather than be a helpful part of the crew.

It is NOT the sunny day VFR flight that is the problem for the low-time pilot; it is the night, IMC, icing, low-fuel fight that will become problematic in a hurry, and fatal if not dealt with properly. IMO, that is the difference between a successful water landing and evacuation in the Hudson, and a heap of burning parts & bodies in Buffalo.

Someone is bound to ask why the experienced AirFrance crew didn't turn around before hitting that thunderstorm over the Atlantic. Good question, but we aren't even sure who was flying at the time...

Modern airplanes are very forgiving -- to a point. However, after that point is reached, the margin between success and disaster is very thin indeed...

[Will Fraser]

The way I read Babbitt's comments has more to do with recapturing some of the benefits of experience on the F/D beyond Stick and Rudder. He's asking for a reinvigoration of the Captain's role in the equation, not some sleazy ploy to gain free training for cadets. As a group, Command pilots have the most palpable power, and squander it of late as a result of shifting their own to areas that should have little or none, but take advantage of the 'freebie' anyway. Jobs are diminishing, that is fact, wouldn't it be nice if 'what's left' of the experience pool has the Bull by the Horns, and dictates increased safety, more rest, attention to Mx, better pay, etc. ?? How often does the leader of the authority extend a hand ? As I said, if it's a 'trick', Have a beer and tell me "I told you so."

Sometimes good things happen.

[MungoP]

Sounds sensible to me... too many newbies have yet to learn that a good pilot is much more than someone who has a grip on the FD... it involves real life/real problem experience in all weathers/terrain/equipment and crew idiosyncrosies... it's time the CAA/FAA started to re-think experience requirements not in terms of simple logbook hours but in valid experience.

[Rananim]

I've flown with plenty of 200 hour-ish FOs and they were great. They knew their stuff, were enthusiastic, keen to learn and hand flew very well.

This always makes me laugh.Attitude/aptitude can somehow offset lack of experience?Airmanship is everything.Nothing else truly matters in flying.

[MTOW]

I know it will offend some, (we've already had one give us his no less valuable than my views on this thread) but RAT 5 says it all in one sentence:My experience of the quality cadets is they are fine everyday nothing goes wrong pilots.I know one 777 captain who thought it was an achievement when he told me that he had made it to being a widebody, international captain without once in his career having to do a diversion.

The first time you're really, really afraid in an aeroplane - and it will happen to most of us at least once - should not with you in charge and 350 people down the back. Such arguments mean nothing to beancounters, but they're valid.

[poina]

It's not the amount of time, it's the quality of the training. I've seen plenty of high time instructors who certainly had no business working with a cadet program. We had cadets directly onto the A-300-600 and 90% of them were excellent, much better than I was when I had their flight time.

IMHO, it is the instructors who need to be screened extremely carefully. The cockpit is no place for ego. It's alot of work to train a cadet, they are stressed to the max, unsure of themselves, and don't need a smartass check airman who runs the cockpit like a little despot.

Aviation safety depends on the quality and ability of the training cadre.

[HarryMann]

IMHO, it is the instructors who need to be screened extremely carefully. The cockpit is no place for ego. It's alot of work to train a cadet, they are stressed to the max, unsure of themselves, and don't need a smartass check airman who runs the cockpit like a little despot.

Aviation safety depends on the quality and ability of the training cadre.

That sounds like a very wise observation

[MungoP]

It's alot of work to train a cadet, they are stressed to the max, unsure of themselves, ....

Everyone knows that the new guys have undergone an acceptable training program but flying is a lot more than pushing buttons and reading an approach plate.... the really tough side can only come with real life experience.

So let's reintroduce a 'second officer' program .... why should the pax down the back be treated to a crew of one decent pilot and a bag carrier unable to contribute anything more than a passable knowledge of systems. The idea of a two crew cockpit is to double the safety factor not halve the workload...

At the end of a tough day when fatigue is higher than the workload it's not a systems failure or a scruffy approach that's likely to bring the whole lot down ... more likely it's attempting an approach in the first place that would have been wiser to avoid... and who's going to pursuade the guy in the left seat that his judgement is off the beam at that time ? The wannabee who's spent his 1000hrs circling a grass airfield on sunny days ?.... Good CRM requires that each of the crew has a respect for the other... All too often the guy on the left (who's capable of poor judgement from time to time) finds himself in the toughest situations flying effectively a single crew operation.

70% of accidents are attributable to human factors... that's the number we have to focus on and CRM... (which everyone is superb at demonstrating in the classroom but somehow all too often forget how to spell in real life situations) depends on constant re-assesment of a dynamic situation by experienced crew.... we're shortchanging both the captains and the pax with anything less than a reasonable amount of experience in the right hand seat.

[West Coast]

And WHAT Exactly, is classified as a Seasoned Pilot?

It's like porn, hard to define but you know it when you see it. It might be easier to define what isn't a seasoned aviator. Anyone who hasn't a few winters of crap wx, deicing and all that goes with it. Someone who hasn't been around 50K CB's in a summer and don't know the nuances of operating around them. Pilots who don't know how to use the radar to figure out if it's rocks or storms ahead as they descend in to Denver from the east. Someone who hasn't anything but a book to fall back on when things go pear shaped. The list goes on and on. Nothing replaces time in the seat.


I've flown with plenty of 200 hour-ish FOs and they were great. They knew their stuff, were enthusiastic, keen to learn and hand flew very well.

I've flown with plenty of multi thousand hour FO's who fit the above description. I've always wondered why when this discussion comes up it's intimated that experienced guys have lousy attitudes.

[manrow]

The FAA Head may well be concerned about cockpit experience - with good reason!

Cockpit experience is a small part of the total equation which leads to an experienced first officer leading to a competent captain.

What is missed is the way that training captains are very often selected from the most experienced personnel with military backgrounds.

I don't question that the miltary spend a fortune on training pilots, but that alone does not make them the best; many civil trained pilots have equally good training skills which generally are currently under utilised, and usually not recognised!

[742]

It's not the amount of time, it's the quality of the training...

No, it is not. And I can prove it.

Go to any operator whose crew force is made up of “experienced pilots” (unfortunately easy in this economy), and for this experiment let us call “experience” 3 or more sets of seasons for the area. Ride around their system in the jumpseat and observe some checkrides. You will not be able to determine any individual’s training background based on their performance. You will be able to asses their basic talents and the degree to which they apply themselves to their profession, but you will not be able to accurately describe their first 500 hours.

Recent training is important in that it hones the edge of the blade, but it does not make the sword. Talent, effort and experience do that.

I do concede that if I were forced to hire very low time pilots I would give a great deal of consideration to their training. But I would prefer not to do that. I would prefer to hire experienced pilots by looking at their abilities, focus and background. And in the later case a varied background is preferable, since the resulting experience is broader.

It is very possible today in the United States to put your family on a Part 25 airplane being operated under Part 121 in which neither member of the crew has diverted. In which neither member of the crew has made a real approach to minimums. In which neither member of the crew has executed a real life missed approach. Now throw in FZDZ. Training, with its sterile and choreographed environment, does not fill these kinds of gaps.

[421dog]

Drat those sluggards who changed the rules to allow electronic facsimiles of checks to keep me from continuing to fly cancelled ones across the frozen wastes of the Northern Midwest (in a LOT of FZDZ) in a clapped-out MU-2...

[AirRabbit]

I do concede that if I were forced to hire very low time pilots I would give a great deal of consideration to their training. But I would prefer not to do that. I would prefer to hire experienced pilots by looking at their abilities, focus and background. And in the later case a varied background is preferable, since the resulting experience is broader.
While it is true that the military does spend a handful on training, the part that has to be recognized is that it is very good training – and I think is the basis for the ICAO adopted Multi-Crew Pilot License (MPL) approach now in beta testing at several locations around the globe.

We’re regularly faced with the famous (or infamous) “you-can’t-go-there-until-you’ve-been-there-twice” story. Everyone would prefer to fly with someone who’s had all the experiences, done all the diversions, experienced all the weather phenomena, etc. The problem is that every pilot who has ever sat in a pilot’s seat, did so for a first time somewhere. The same holds true for each of the experiences gained, the diversions flown, and the weather experienced … there is always a first notch on the belt before there is a lot of experience able to fit under that belt … in doing anything. Some of the earlier posts on this and other threads on this forum periodically bring out that it’s an individual kind of thing. Anyone can suck it up and pretend … fake the walk, mumble the talk, and depend on mother nature and the airplane and avionics manufacturers to keep him out of trouble. But to become truly “good,” one has to recognize his/her own limitations, admit that the airplane has limitations, and recognize that it is a far sight better to never exceed either. One has to be inquisitive, interested, and eager to learn … and then be willing to do so.

While I’ll be the first to admit that training alone cannot (and should not) be counted on as a complete substitute for experience … I also have to recognize that experience in doing something the wrong way, the long way, or the headstrong way is a well trodden path to less than desirable outcomes. Here is where proper and complete training can make all the difference in the world. For example, would you rather your first officer be the guy with 1800 hours and an ATP or the guy with 250 hours, commercial multi-engine, and instrument rated? All else being equal … probably the ATP holder right? But, what if that ATP holder has 200 hours of flight time as a pilot and 1600 hours of light, single engine, instructor time (logged as “pilot-in-command”); and the 250 hour guy is a graduate of a program designed to bring “ab initio” pilots (zero flight time persons) through something like an MPL program or the programs offered by the “airline training academies” seen flourishing all over the sunshine states in the US, designed to train airline First Officers? I know which I would take.

[421dog]

(Please note, I have a job, I am not bitter, nor do I have any other heavy cutlery to grind)

The ab initio guy with 250 directed hours may well know more about systems and his specific aircraft. He will have been trained to deal with things to the company training standards.

The guy with 1600 instructor hours will likely have minimal CRM skills, little relevant "big airplane" experience and a bunch of bad habits.

On the other hand, if I had to pick one of the above who would be most likely to think that pulling against a stick shaker was a good idea, it would have to be pilot number one.

There is something to be said for demonstrating your ability to not end up dead in unpredictable situations over a period of time.

Maybe, if we could invent a lethal simulator....:)

[p51guy]

I fought my way into a position at my first airline with 5500 hrs with lots of jet and pic jet time. Some 4 engine. I felt very fortunate to be lucky enough to be hired. I can not imagine a pilot with 250 hrs to be able to handle the responsibilities of flying passengers in an airliner without a lot of supervision from the captain making his job a lot harder.

You can find a lot of fully qualified people for the right seat if you offer them descent pay. If you want to get off cheap you might be sorry. We just saw one example in Buffalo.

[742]

..For example, would you rather your first officer be the guy with 1800 hours and an ATP or the guy with 250 hours, commercial multi-engine, and instrument rated? All else being equal … probably the ATP holder right? But, what if that ATP holder has 200 hours of flight time as a pilot and 1600 hours of light, single engine, instructor time (logged as “pilot-in-command”); and the 250 hour guy is a graduate of a program designed to bring “ab initio” pilots (zero flight time persons) through something like an MPL program or the programs offered by the “airline training academies” seen flourishing all over the sunshine states in the US, designed to train airline First Officers? I know which I would take.

I would take the ATP. IMO you put too little value on instructor time.

And I have flown with the products from the "airline training academies". Some of them are very good, but too many got their ratings based on Dad's ability to pay. Spoiled little rich kids is, unfortunately, too often an accurate stereotype. So again, I would take the guy who scraped to get his time – he probably actually likes his work, is interested in it and has a passion for it.

But this continues to be a distraction. The real issue is not low time pilots in the right seat, it is low time pilots sitting next to inexperienced Captains. That does not happen in Europe and did not happen in the United States during the late 1960s; but it is happening right now in the United States regional industry. And it is the direct result of the major airlines going for the lowest bidder.

[p51guy]

Not paying your pilots liveable wages means you will get the least qualified desperate to build their time. It is a recipe for disaster because as soon as these underqualified people become captains they will have underqualified copilots. When the captain gets enough experience he will join a real airline and the cycle repeats itself to infinity. Greed by the regionals has caused this and the FAA has to intervene.

[traveller93]

Gentlemen.... and since it seems that the conversation has drifted towards the new discussion "CPL/MPL", please alow me to add my two cents worth of an opinion.

Many have strongly defended the "traditional" way into an airline jet's cockpit by building thousand's of hours on single (some multiple) engined a/c. And then, what?

They have to get a TR over a, perhaps, two or three week conversion course done, most of the time, in a simulator.....

Will they have more experience on the a/c type than the MPL rated pilots who have done a couple of hundred hours on it already??

To cut it short, I leave you all with an extract of the ICAO FAQ on the subject:

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

Multi-Crew Pilot Licence (MPL)

What is the MPL?

The MPL allows a pilot to exercise the privileges of a co-pilot in a commercial air transportation on multi-crew aeroplanes. It provides the aviation community with an opportunity to train pilots directly for co-pilot duties. It is a new licence that has been introduced in addition to the existing pilot licences defined in Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing.
The licence focuses on ab initio airline pilot training. MPL training and assessment will be competency-based and involve a multi-crew environment and threat and error management from the onset. It provides for greater use of flight simulation training devices and include mandatory upset training. At this stage, only aeroplanes are considered for this new licence. The details of the requirements for the licence are contained in Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing and in the Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Training (PANS-TRG). These documents outline the minimum international Standard for the implementation of the MPL by any State; they can be (http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#31)purchased directly (http://www.icao.int/icao/en/m_publications.html) from ICAO through the (http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#31)Document Sales Unit ([email protected]). (http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#31)

Will the MPL be recognized by Contracting States?

As a licence defined by ICAO the MPL will be recognized by all ICAO Contracting States even by those that may decide not to establish an MPL as a licence within their own States. More details on the recognition of licences by other States can be found on the FAQ on (http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#31)"International recognition of flight crew licences" (http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/#10). (http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#31)

What is a multi-crew aeroplane?

It is an aeroplane that requires a flight crew of at least two pilots. One of them is the pilot-in-command (the captain) and the other is the co-pilot (or first officer). All jet air transport aeroplanes and the vast majority of turbine powered air transport aircraft and business jet are multi-crew aeroplanes. The definition in Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing states that it is: "an aircraft required to be operated with a co-pilot as specified in the flight manual or by the air operator certificate."

Do I have to hold a MPL to be a co-pilot on a muti-crew aeroplane?

No, the co-pilot on a multi-crew aeroplane can hold either a MPL or a CPL endorsed with an instrument rating and a type rating on a multi-crew aircraft.

What are the differences between the CPL and the MPL?

For the purposes of operating multi-crew aircraft, the privileges of a MPL are equivalent to those of CPL endorsed with an instrument rating and a type rating on a multi-crew aircraft. However, and because the MPL is geared toward operation of multi-crew airplane, an MPL pilot cannot generally fly on single pilot aeroplane without meeting additional requirements. For example, MPL holders cannot exercise the privileges of a CPL and instrument ratings on single pilot aeroplane without meeting specific actual flight time and flight instruction requirements.
A number of MPL courses may be a modification of the current JAA frozen ATPL or the Transport Canada and FAA CPL/Multi-engine training, but it is expected that the majority will follow the guidance proposed in the Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Training (PANS-TRG) document.

What are the minimum flight hours required for the MPL?

The ICAO Standard for the MPL specifies 240 hours as the minimum number of actual and simulated flight hours performing the functions of the pilot flying and the pilot non-flying. However, the Standard does not specify the breakdown between actual and simulated flight hours and thus allow part of the training curriculum that was traditionally conducted on aeroplane to be done on flight simulation training devices (FSTDs). However, there is a requirement that the applicant meets all the actual flying time for a private pilot licence plus additional actual flying time in instrument, night flying and upset recovery.

Why was the MPL established?

The MPL was established to respond to the growing demand in the aviation training community that felt that the current regulatory regime that dictated a large number of flying hours in solo and on a smaller aircraft was not the most efficient and safe way to train pilots for copilot duties on jet transport aircraft.
Further, there was some perceived negative training in the apprenticeship model that was first developed for flight training in the post second world war era. A number of training organizations and airlines were adamant that modern training techniques and research into the use of modern training devices such as flight simulation training devices needed to be recognized within the ICAO licensing structure. The ICAO Air Navigation Commission formed a Flight Crew Licensing and Training Panel to explore the options and opportunities to address the shortcomings of some current licensing requirements. The competency-based concept and the MPL licence were the outcome of that panel's deliberations.

How can the MPL be implemented?

ICAO has developed the Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Training (PANS-TRG) document to support the implementation of the MPL and will monitor developments in this area through a proof of concept programme. This programme will involve stakeholders from regulatory bodies and industry. In addition, an Air Training Organization must meet the prescribed organizational standards which are also outlined in Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing and the Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Training (PANS-TRG).

What is the status of the MPL regulatory provisions?

(http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#31)
The ICAO Council adopted the provisions related to the MPL as part of Amendment 167 to Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing on 10 March 2006. The new provisions will become applicable on 23 November 2006.
(http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#31)

Many have mentioned the financial/investment by the operators aspect. But what we have to be concerned with is: SAFETY!!

As a new comer, who is more competent to fly the new generation a/c as a FO? The multi-thousand hour GA pilot (who paid 15KUS$ for is three week TR) or the MPLr (who was trained during 12 to 16 months and dished out 50KUS$)?

I know it is a controvercial question but I leave it to you anyway.

And don't forget that the MPLs can only be trained if sponsored by an airline and on its own SOPs.

Something I'm against, because I think they should be trained on the manufacturer's SOPs and then be able to seek employment in any airline, who then should make them aware of its own SOPs before hiring them. If they failed to follow the operators SOPs, then invite them to leave as not suitable for the position.

That is what ICAO and the regulators (FAA, JAA, etc. etc.) should be made aware of.

Cheers to all!!!

[protectthehornet]

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP RANDY!!!!

The union you used to head up would have twenty year pilots JUNIOR to 7 year pilots...and you have the nerve asking us to mentor for free.

HA!

I hope you read this randy. You are a jerk. IF YOU HAD any undercarriage, you would demand that the ATP ticket had more hours and all airline crewmembers had ATP tickets.

Its all about money randy...too bad you won't really speak up.

I know lots of experienced pilots who have left the USA to get jobs overseas paying at least 100k a year with lots of time off.

they would be glad to come back to colgan air if they could be well paid and well treated.

Mentoring...HA...the only thing I can think of in flying with the MENTOR is what the trainer was called in the navy that was built out of leftover bonanza parts.

Contact me anytime Randy!

[Intruder]

As a new comer, who is more competent to fly the new generation a/c as a FO? The multi-thousand hour GA pilot (who paid 15KUS$ for is three week TR) or the MPLr (who was trained during 12 to 16 months and dished out 50KUS$)?

I know it is a controvercial question but I leave it to you anyway.
The new MPL might have more intimate familiarity with one airline's procedures on one airplane. Other than that, he is less prepared to do what is necessary in the event of an emergency. He will likely have little "air sense," decision-making experience, or ability to deal with unscripted scenarios.

Further, the MPL is only a temporary band-aid fix to a perceived pilot shortage problem. He will not have the credentials to become a Captain, so his investment will leave him strapped to the right seat with no upgrade or transfer path until he completes his ATPL. Since he will not have the requisite solo and PIC time for even a CPL or Instrument rating, he will have another large investment to make.

[Bad Robot]

Until they changes the requirements.....................Again!

BR.

[AirRabbit]

On the other hand, if I had to pick one of the above who would be most likely to think that pulling against a stick shaker was a good idea, it would have to be pilot number one.
The only problem with choosing pilot #1 on the basis that he or she would certainly know not to fight a stick pusher, I’d remind you that such an instructor would likely never have flown an airplane with a stick pusher until he or she qualified on the aircraft operated by the airline – just like the Colgan pilots.

I can not imagine a pilot with 250 hrs to be able to handle the responsibilities of flying passengers in an airliner without a lot of supervision from the captain making his job a lot harder.
I’d call your attention to US military flight training – graduation at just over a year with just over 200 hours of flight time. Of course some go on to fighters, but many go on to transport aircraft – some of which fly the self-loading cargo – and they seem to do reasonably OK.

IMO you put too little value on instructor time.
Not at all. Some instructor time is very valuable … but I’ve seen more than my fair share who take an instructor’s job simply to log the flight time – which can mount up fairly quickly, leaving a relatively inexperienced pilot with an ATP. Also, I happen to share your concerns about the only folks winding up in the right seats of airline cockpits being the sons and daughters of only the very rich. Not that all such youngsters are bad apples, but it does cut down on the universe of potentially good pilot candidates. Of course, there are exceptions on both sides of the fence.

The fact is that we see today may very well be due to airlines simply wanting to pay the least they can get away with … and perhaps if those wages were bumped to a more livable rate there would be no shortage of pilot applicants … but all applicants aren’t necessarily good candidates, while, surely it does open the universe a bit. In the research I’ve seen … both regarding the ages of the US pilots (now postponed for 5 years) and their pending retirements ... and the increase in airframes the major manufacturers are touting for the next 15 years – even if the current economic slowdown continues and a portion of the “new” machines will go to replace older, less efficient machines … there is still a significant potential for the airline industry in the US to need something like 400 pilots a month, every month, for a 12 year period. Sorry, but if that is anything close to accurate, the viable candidates that emerge from the weeds for a better salary won’t begin to cover that need.

[AirRabbit]

“The ICAO Standard for the MPL specifies 240 hours as the minimum number of actual and simulated flight hours performing the functions of the pilot flying and the pilot non-flying. However, the Standard does not specify the breakdown between actual and simulated flight hours and thus allow part of the training curriculum that was traditionally conducted on aeroplane to be done on flight simulation training devices (FSTDs). However, there is a requirement that the applicant meets all the actual flying time for a private pilot licence plus additional actual flying time in instrument, night flying and upset recovery.”
In a recent “beta test” conducted by the Boeing Training organization, Alteon, in Australia, ab initio pilots were trained using MPL and the average student completing the course completed with between 380 and 450 hours of training – note training – of which only about 50 – 60 hours were in an airplane. When placed in the cockpits of airliners, a good share of Captains had rather high praise for the education, knowledge, attitude, and willingness to learn demonstrated by these recent graduates … but the interesting part is that the competence of these graduates was universally noted as being quite acceptable. I would still have a lot of questions about the differences between the posited number (240 – 250 hours) and the reality (380 – 450 hours) as well as the training continuity and what, if any, other licenses were issued. But the fact remains that the first such “beta test” seems to show promising results.

[421dog]

AirRabbit,

My assertion is that someone who would fight a stick pusher likely does not know what the pusher is trying to avert. Someone who bombed around as a CFI for 1600 hrs would have stalled enough airplanes to avoid that confusion. On the other hand, someone who was trained ab initio that the way out of a stall was to hold attitude and add power...

[Will Fraser]

421dog

Again, if you refer to Colgan, review their training in the Bombardier.
At shaker the drill is to add power and maintain altitude, not at Stall.
Recovery from shaker is a different animal from Stall recovery, Renslow appears to have mistaken his attitude because of the a/p loss just prior to shaker. If he was (incorrectly) holding altitude, after all the a/p had been , (but with diminishing a/s) He may have mistaken 'a/p' means 'level'.
He may not have remembered his neglect of adding power at low pitch.

In any case, I don't see that this pilot didn't follow at least his advanced training re: shaker. He may have just not been aware of his noseup attitude. That probably led to Stall, and the need to immediately abandon his trained in shaker recovery and revert to Stall recovery. For whatever reason, it appears he didn't make the connection. Should Colgan train power and nose down at shaker? ?

[protectthehornet]

dual given as a CFI or CFII or MEI is great time. I learned more about flying from teaching than anything else.

I made my students go into real wx for instrument time.

I remember that C. Lindbergh said you don't know how to fly till you teach it!

The guy was right...if you stalled with a student (on purupose) you will be wide awake for the real thing in an airliner.

[p51guy]

I hated instructing after I did it for a while. I liked multi engine instruction and instrument instruction because I was learning too, but Just wanted to fly my own plane. Charter flying was great because you were able to do that. Airline flying was great for the same reason. Stall recovery is such a simple fix it is hard to understand why these two people couldn't figure it out. With all the experienced people available, regionals still insist on the least expensive route. Hire unqualified people and hope you are lucky.

[cessnapuppy]

90% of what we do each day only takes 10% of our skill and attention. Even 'Eldar Kudrinsky' could fly an airplane on his very first (and last) flight. 'uneventful' doesnt mean 'safe' You roll the dice enough, eventually you are going to hit that 'Golden Flight' that demands ALL the skill you have -the full 100%. Will it be enough? it was for 'Sully'.. not for these two, perhaps doomed before they started, if not this flight, some other weary, bleary eyed trip. Who knows what difference a good nights sleep in a bed instead of two chairs and a 15 mile instead of an 800 mile commute may have made? or the financial security to turn down some paying work hours knowing you will still make your car payment or rent or food? Remember the big Chinese Lead and Heavy Metal toxic toys scare of a few years back? Mattel had precise specifications on color and GLOSS (shininess) AND a specific price that they would pay. THE ONLY way to meet those specifications w/o going bankrupt is to cheat and use heavy metals like lead, chromium and antimony in the paint. SOMETHING had to break - and in this case it did. I dont think we're done yet, either....

[Chuck Canuck]

If you guys are uncomfortable with a 300 hour type rated MPL holder as your F/O, think about this. In Korean Air there is a recently hired B744 skipper who was a mere B737 first officer in Europe less than 5 years back! New outfits like Jade cargo hired B737 skippers with dodgy credentials as non-rated B744 DECs and, wallah presto! , within a year they wriggled out of contract AND GET IN KOREAN AIR. It ain't nice deadheading on KAL when things go pear shape!

[WestWind1950]

I once experienced flight instructors doing instructing in Cessna 152's just to collect the needed 1500 hours... once they got that, they were gone and I needed a new instructor (and their instructing style was needless to say NOT very motivating!).

My ex started flight training at 18 yrs. old... starting with the usual Beech Barons and Aztecs. At 21 he got his ATPL.. that was 1969 and I have no idea how many hours he had. He went directly to co-pilot flight training on 737's (I believe it was 3 weeks or so in Portugal with REAL 737's!) and went on line with a major airline (which he had been training with).... at 21! He flew the 737's, then transfered to co on 707's and international flights. He always said what great hands-on training those birds were!

With 26 he went back to 737's.... as CAPTAIN! He was the youngest captain at the time. As a captain on 737's, he got all the newbees and it was part of his job to share his experience with them.... like an instructor. I think THAT is what the FAA is talking about! He often mentioned, too, that many newbees were good at computer programing but no longer had the feeling for flying.

After about 15 yrs. on the 737 he went into captain training for 747-400's (he hated leaving the 737's, which is why he waited so long to advance). That was 1992. He just retired last year at 60 yrs. old.

So, as you see, it is NOT necessarily a matter of hours. I think it is more the type of training that's important. In a similator you can learn a lot, but not everything.

[AirRabbit]

AirRabbit,
My assertion is that someone who would fight a stick pusher likely does not know what the pusher is trying to avert. Someone who bombed around as a CFI for 1600 hrs would have stalled enough airplanes to avoid that confusion. On the other hand, someone who was trained ab initio that the way out of a stall was to hold attitude and add power..
In a perfect world I would agree ... however, I have seen many a pilot with a lot more than 1600 hours fight a stick pusher simply because they've never seen one in action previously. If my information is correct, the Colgan accident aircraft had a stick shaker that preceeded the stick pusher, and the crews in training were trained to recover at the stick shaker. If so, its very likely that they'd never experienced the pusher.

I have always had a sore spot about the regulatory requirement for stall recovery that required "minimum loss of altitude." And I only say that because, that statement was interpreted to mean exceptionally little or no altitude loss - primarily because, as pilots, we each look for "perfection," and if losing 75 feet is OK, then losing only 25 feet is better, and the perfect solution would be to lose "zero." That's not what the requirement says, I don't believe its what the authors originally intended, but it is clear that is the way it's been interpreted.

Off the top of my head I can give you several accident references where the flight crew attempted to "fly out of the stall," trying to keep the altitude loss to a minimum, when merely pushing forward on the controls would have been sufficient. The most prominent is probably the ABX DC-8 in Virginia. The cost of pushing forward on the controls would have been some altitude loss - but not the amount it eventually cost those folks - in that case, 17,000 feet. However, when it's in-grained (over, and over, and over again) that you just don't do that, when you first are subjected to a real stall ... almost everyone will immediately do what they've been trained to do. If I were a betting person, I'd bet that we'll see a change in the stall recovery regulations that will say something like "airspeed or altitude loss not required for recovery should be avoided" - and that one change just may have significant impact on how that particular set of piloting tasks will be addressed in future training programs.

[MU3001A]

The wording and training scenarios may be a problem.

But what troubles me even more, is the apparent lack of self preservation that would have a pilot react to a stick shaker event by pulling back on the stick instead of stiff arming it as the power comes on against all that adverse trim. I might expect a student pilot, unfamiliar with the regime of flight to react that way. But not a fully qualified and experienced ATP in the left seat of an airliner.

[HarryMann]

It's belief in the shaker and situational awareness...

One was not believed, or misunderstood, the other absent or again, misunderstood

[MU3001A]

Well sure, I can understand momentary disbelief due to the loss of situational awareness. But we are paid to react correctly in such situations and the reaction when it came was a mixture of the good and bad. He got the power up, but failed to stiff arm the yoke and inexplicably pulled back aggressively enough to initiate an actual stall. Are you positing that the disbelief extended to the pusher too?

[742]

In a recent “beta test” conducted by the Boeing Training organization, Alteon, in Australia, ab initio pilots were trained using MPL and the average student completing the course completed with between 380 and 450 hours of training – note training – of which only about 50 – 60 hours were in an airplane. When placed in the cockpits of airliners, a good share of Captains had rather high praise for the education, knowledge, attitude, and willingness to learn demonstrated by these recent graduates … but the interesting part is that the competence of these graduates was universally noted as being quite acceptable. I would still have a lot of questions about the differences between the posited number (240 – 250 hours) and the reality (380 – 450 hours) as well as the training continuity and what, if any, other licenses were issued. But the fact remains that the first such “beta test” seems to show promising results.

This would be, in my mind, fine if the pilots were going to work for the Lufthansa’s and KLMs of the world.

But what about throwing them into a shoestring operation whose senior Captains have, at best, 3 sets of seasons under their belts (and often less)? And after two years will these pilots be Captain material?

The quality of the operation, its leadership and its cadre of Captains has to be considered first before looking at what makes a suitable FO. The Colgans of the world are not Lufthansa, something that I suspect the bean squeezing MBAs in headquarters might be proud of.

[Intruder]

This would be, in my mind, fine if the pilots were going to work for the Lufthansa’s and KLMs of the world.
Hmmm... While I admit we have WAY too little info in the AirFrance crash in the Atlantic a short time ago, what makes you think a MPL will be better off with an international flag carrier? A bad decision or lack of decision can have the same result regardless of carrier. Just for the Faux News crowd, a crash of a bottom-feeder cargo plane would likely have MUCH less public outcry because only 2-8 people would die instead of 200-400 (unless in the middle of a crowded city...).

[MungoP]

For all the wannabees here who think that ''willingness to learn" and competant a/c handling skills in the sim make a good pilot... think again... it may LEAD someone into becoming a good pilot but pilots are not created in flightschools they're created over many years of hard won experience... there are no shortcuts. Quoting low logbook time airforce/army pilots as being competant doesn't hack it... Those people are chosen for exceptional qualities and every hour in the book is an intense training experience in a tough environment... and the majority of initial applicants fail to make it .. those that do are not the average FO found in any small or commuter airline. For those of us with more modest talents we become decent safe pilots by learning more slowly in the dark cold real world of icing/storm fronts/embedded CBs/hundreds of approaches to minima with fuel guages threatening to undo us before reaching position #1 at our alternate and having to explain to ops directors why we chose to override the fuel recommended by the computer and take an extra ton or so. All this comes over years of trying to get right seemingly minor decisions that have to be made at 0800 that can kill you at 1600 ...
Like it or not.. a smart uniform being marched through the a/p terminal does not automatically indicate a competant pilot... even if it has four rings sewn on each sleeve.

[Bealzebub]

I agree with everything mungop has said above, but would add the following observations.

As I walk from the from the car park or hotel into the airport terminal every day, I remind myself that every accident or serious incident that ever affected a crew, did so on a day that started just like this one. The great danger is complacency. In this respect it doesn't matter whether you have 200 hours or 20,000 hours. Complacency simply takes a different form. On any given day there has to be a determination to sharpen your own self awareness, and on some days that takes more effort than others. Part of this self awareness is an understanding of the combined resources available to you on any given day, and understanding how the operation may need to be adjusted or modified to take into account the variables. A lot of the variables can be subtle. It is in these subtleties that experience should be a highly valuable asset.

Rather like patting a strange dog. Neither a child nor an adult would approach a growling dog. An adult with far greater experience would however detect other subtle behaviour in a non growling dog, that might make them far more wary or cautious than would a child, who risks being bitten to a far greater degree.

Experience should bring with it a history of lessons learned. Imparting the information, benefits and dangers of those lessons , should be the natural teaching / learning process that is the responsibility of each generation to pass on to the next. Certainly not all of the lessons will be learned, nor fully appreciated or remembered, but some will. Conversely experience doesn't compensate for routine errors, mistakes, omissions, impatience and lapses of attention. In these aspects, the safety benefits of two people cross checking and monitoring each other, requires little experience to be of significant effectiveness.

It is in the mix of these ingredients, of experience, self awarness, competence and attitude that the recipes are formulated for success or a lack of it, and in the worst cases disaster. Experience is certainly a vital part of the successful mix, and that experience comes in a wide spectrum of quality. The administrator appears to be properly advocating the necessity of pilots to ensure the benefits of their own experience are properly taught and integrated into the daily operation of flights conducted by these pilots, and that a better and heightened awareness of all of the available resources is understood by all pilots.

Without doubt this is an observation to be applauded, my concern is that many of the weaknesses inherent within the system, exist and have been encouraged by a lazy and ineffective attitude within the regulatory environments on both sides of the Atlantic, and no doubt elsewhere.

[Fragman88]

Good post. No more to say, except...
Beware the Dog!:E

[Merlyn]

well I've long since retired from military flying but this talk about the competance of low time military aviatiors vis a vis civilian pilots got me thinking about my own early days out of military flight school and the scrapes I got into and survived because god protects fools and beginners. With all of our great training I lost a number of acquaintances not so lucky who died in military crashes that didn't garner a lot of attention because each crash didn't have a couple of hundred dead civilian passengers added to the mix.

The point I'm making is that in the military flight community experienced aviators tried to watch out for us low time guys because we were low time guys, military flight training notwithstanding. IMHO there is no substitute for experience.

[galaxy flyer]

Too true, my 29 years in the USAF involved more than a few funerals for those who showed us how NOT to do things.

GF

[Graybeard]

At least in the US, cockpit experience is going up rapidly every day, as the majors drop routes and park planes. Even the 787 may be obsolete before it's needed.

GB

[Obama57]

Trusting Randy Babbit is like trusting Frank Lorenzo. DO NOT think he is on your side(pilots), he IS NOT.

[Atreyu]

This thread seems to have alot of contributors who are substituting hours for experience, you can compare two commanders of 5000 hours, and it can be night and day between what each has done with said hours.

I was once told ''the more you can see from that seat (RHS), the better you'll be in this seat (LHS)''

Couldn't agree more...

Atreyu:ok:

[hauxdeu]

All the ruminataing by the Randy Babbits, Frank Lorenzos and Glenn Tiltons of the world amount to nothing once we close the cockpit door. What really matters is how the Captain runs the show.

Is he humble enough to admit that he can learn something from EVERY F/O, even a 24 yr old Barbie doll quota hire? Because, even she may notice something the old Captain just missed, and one day, it may be critical real time info that could save the day. (Sorry, I have no examples here...)

On the flip side, are the F/Os willing to learn from their Captains, or more interested in reporting what should be confidential information to their respective Thought Police if there is some real (or imagined) minor "deviation" from some obscure SOP??? (Sorry, I absolutely can't think of any examples here, either..)

Having an excellent command style means keeping the cockpit relaxed enough so the new guys can learn in freedom...freedom from the suits OUTSIDE the cockpit door.

[Will Fraser]

The restoration of Command authority is a critical step as the Industry shrinks, adjusts, and redefines. The loss of Pilot authority was regretful as long as it happened in the boardroom, but the last battle is taking shape as economic, political, and resource conflicts define the new Industry. In a way, this is a very opportune time for pilots to regain, and embellish their standing, fiscal stature, and Cockpit authority. Round trip Florida to California for 170 small ones can't last; bargaining power has been fractured, and the time to drive the system as well as the aircraft is at hand. Don't dally.

Will

[galaxy flyer]

One of the first Captains I flew with, Leo Page, numero Uno at BOSFO EAL, introduced himself to me, a probie F/E, and, "Speak up if see anything you don't like, we can all die together from our mistakes." Enuf said!

GF

[have another coffee]

I am amazed and worried how airline business has changed the last few years. In general we operate far from any boundary in the airline business. Only through training and sharing experience we can learn where the boundaries of operating an aircraft in the real world are (own limits and limits of aircraft/systems/atc/weather etc). In the current way training of new pilots AND recurrent training are organized we do not realize any more where these boundaries are nor can we detect how quickly we are approaching a boundary. Sim rides are stamped with legal requirements instead of interactive and constructive learning, newbe pilots follow a strict program (=minimum cost) without gaining the experience to approach or cross a limit. The way companies run their operation also does not leave many room for input of your own. For almost every decision in the process there is department or rule dictating the way forward. In combination with tight schedules (and other time factors) it does not leave much room to think and realize what we are doing once we are in the flow putting signatures on every piece of paper prepared by others.
It really makes me feel sometimes as a bus driver without the realization of running a potantial very dangerous business if not everyone is on top of it knows exactly what he/she is doing. Be it either from experience or proper training fit for the airline operation we are conducting everyday.
I think it will need some research to define the exact problem before a proper solution will be found (if there really is a problem). I personally will feel better with an (ab initio) co-pilot next to me if I know he/she is trained to the limits and has already learned to detect an upcomming problem before it is really there. Simply the ability to recognize the feeling something is wrong, the right knowledge and experience, how little this may be.

[jetjackel]

Ct. Yankee.

I remember that program at UAL. Didn't all "cadets" go into the engineers seat for a time?

[jetjackel]

Heuxdeu

Excellent description. Reckon that about sums up the mind set necessary.

[Ct.Yankee]

Jet J

Yes, with the exception of the airlines that were flying, Martins, Convairs or DC3's and the pilot hires that were less that twenty-one years old, all started in the backseat or middle seat as Second Officers. (ALPA didn't like the FE title) I'm sure there were some exceptions.
In most cases we had the progression of anywhere from five to twenty years experience prior to "checking out" as Captain.

[AirRabbit]

:confused:
Of course, anyone would rather see those entering the airline business have a history of competent time “in the seat” with excellent pilot skills, a willingness to learn what they don't know, and so forth. And, there are some who really believe that there are an adequate number of those types hiding in the weeds, simply awaiting the airlines to advertise that they need pilots with exactly those skills. Also, there are those who believe that there are “seasoned, veteran pilots” currently flying for the regional airlines who will be ready, willing, and able, to move to the national or major airlines in numbers more than sufficient to cover those who are going fill the vacancies due to retirements and an increase in the aircraft in service over the next 10 – 12 years. Of course, its always possible that these folks are correct - and then again, maybe they're not correct.

There are those who believe that with the number of aircraft that the manufacturers are gearing up to deliver over the next dozen years, or so, (and both Boeing and Airbus are predicting record breaking deliveries each month throughout at least the first portion of that period) and the number of pilots who will reach retirement (at least in the US) in that same period, the numbers of pilots that will be needed (again, in the US) will be approximately 400 per month, each month throughout that period. Personally, I doubt that the “weeds” are hiding that number of pilot candidates with the desired qualifications. IF that is true, one of 3 things will be required: 1) the airlines will have to hire those with minimum qualifications (i.e., 200 – 250 hours, an instrument rating, and a commercial certificate); 2) the airlines will have to get into the ab-initio training business; or 3) there will be companies who will train ab-initio pilots – in a manner similar to the MPL methodologies currently being incorporated around the globe – to provide acceptable first officer candidates. The questions then become, what kind of first officers are needed when a good share of the captains are going to have just barely more flight time than is required for the ATP? … and perhaps most importantly, what method will provide the best candidate (combining knowledge, skill, and experience) for the cost involved? I'd submit that the options are not unlimited.

And ... as far as Mr. Babbitt is concerned, I think that passing judgment on what he is going to do or is considering doing is a bit premature. Shouldn't we wait until he's been at the controls for a bit more than 90 days at least?

[M80]

The multi-thousand hour GA pilot (who paid 15KUS$ for is three week TR) or the MPLr (who was trained during 12 to 16 months and dished out 50KUS$)?

I know it is a controvercial question but I leave it to you anyway.

It's not a controversial question. Especially when you pose the question in such a biased manner. The alternative to an MPL or low hour CPL ME/IR low houred pilot isn't a 1500 hour GA pilot flying a C172 in circuits, as you would have us believe. There exist many pilots who fly charter in the bigger piston twins or turbo props looking to continue their careers in airlines via the RHS. You're then talking about 1000-3000 hour pilots who've been exposed to busy airspace, poor weather, storms, and in general being the only pilot on board. I can promise you that these pilots, having done the hard time, will also be eager and keen, grateful for the step up and have some understanding and respect for the responsibilities that lie on the shoulders of the guy in the LHS.

[MungoP]

M80
You're then talking about 1000-3000 hour pilots who've been exposed to busy airspace, poor weather, storms, and in general being the only pilot on board. I can promise you that these pilots, having done the hard time, will also be eager and keen, grateful for the step up and have some understanding and respect for the responsibilities that lie on the shoulders of the guy in the LHS.

Spot on... those are the people I want next to me on a dark and stormy night...with no second officer program in place the regionals should be looking at these guys to fill the right hand seat... but of course they don't want to pay them... because the SLF down the back want to fly for the price of a bus ticket and so the free market kicks in... Only if the FAA/CAA revise their requirements for crew experience and force the airlines to conform will anything get done. The newbees think it's all about flying the plane.. it's not... it's about surviving while flying the plane.

[AirRabbit]

It's not a controversial question. Especially when you pose the question in such a biased manner. The alternative to an MPL or low hour CPL ME/IR low houred pilot isn't a 1500 hour GA pilot flying a C172 in circuits, as you would have us believe. There exist many pilots who fly charter in the bigger piston twins or turbo props looking to continue their careers in airlines via the RHS. You're then talking about 1000-3000 hour pilots who've been exposed to busy airspace, poor weather, storms, and in general being the only pilot on board. I can promise you that these pilots, having done the hard time, will also be eager and keen, grateful for the step up and have some understanding and respect for the responsibilities that lie on the shoulders of the guy in the LHS.
Spot on... those are the people I want next to me on a dark and stormy night...with no second officer program in place the regionals should be looking at these guys to fill the right hand seat... but of course they don't want to pay them... because the SLF down the back want to fly for the price of a bus ticket and so the free market kicks in... Only if the FAA/CAA revise their requirements for crew experience and force the airlines to conform will anything get done. The newbees think it's all about flying the plane.. it's not... it's about surviving while flying the plane.
There is little doubt there ARE these folks out there - and they would likely make for excellent airline entry first officers ... but are there enough of them to supply 400 pilots a month, every month, for 12 years? And that figure is just for the US ... Europe is likely to require somethig similiar - and the Pacific Rim ... at least the same ... perhaps more. And IF (you make the call) those numbers cannot be supplied by whatever source you name, from where are those pilots going to come?

[NoJoke]

Where did you get those figures from. Was it some hare today goon tomorrow operation. I wish that it might be true cos my last 10 years might be good ones. :ok:

[AirRabbit]

Hey NoJoke

Here's a link: WATS Pilot Conference (http://www.performedia.com/halldale/wats09/)

Once loaded, scroll down to item number 3 ... I think you have to register to be able to see the presentations, but Kit Darby's presentation might brighten your day ... please note ... I said might! Good luck.

[MungoP]

AirRabbit... we would ALL like it if those numbers prove accurate but even if they are we still can't allow inexperience in the right hand seat to put lives at risk... If an airline can't recruit suitable experience for the F/O position that's their problem... either they offer better T&Cs or they'd better start growing their own crop of future F/Os by putting second officer/junior F/Os whatever you want to call them into the jump seat and letting them watch while tough decisions are being made at the front... they can witness many hours and trips that will demonstrate the good, the bad and the ugly CRM and see a few winters of survival flying before pretending to be pilots.
With so many newbees prepared to fly for food it would cost the airlines little more than the price of the extra useful load and a few hotel room costs... a small price to pay to arrest a decline in public confidence in the regionals.

[cessnapuppy]

The big problem, it seems to me ( regardless of experience) is the trend toward 'unflying' pilots - Primarily highlighted by Airbus and their vaunted fly-by-wire schemes but also many airlines SOP's not only demanding automation for just about everything, but penalizing any hand flying as well. Look at some of recent latest accidents - where the right action is taken- but too late. Many involve a frantic flipping through checklists, manuals, rebooting systems, trying to source flashing lights.. all but what should be instinctive maintaining attitude,speed and altitude. I understand the wish for automation, it reduces fatigue and over 100's of miles of flying the incremental handling differences at cruise even at 1/2 of a percent in increased efficiency, translate to bottom line savings. But longer periods of -and a greater degree of of 'operator disconnection' with the aircraft make it more difficult for the pilot to 'reconnect' when the aircraft gets startled and throws the controls back in his lap with a 'here, YOU fly it!'; (along with one or more hamstrung 'law modes' which may or may not be immediately obvious in a turbulent situation). The pilot 'monitoring the systems' means you dont have a pilot anymore, and repetitively watching an input stream for hiccups is a job for a computer -not a human! What I'd like to see is a total flip of the equation, where instead of extended auto-pilot mode, you have instead, 'auto-captain' /'AP monitor' mode. The pilot is hand flying the plane, but the AP-System, is monitoring the inputs and if they vary from what the AP would have done, give feedback with a physical buzz and an auditory tone (like a force feedback joystick on a game). This basically 'teaches' the pilot to 'fly like an autopilot', ie. very fuel efficient. This also means that there is no 'hand over' - that deadzone when control is passed from one system to another, the pilot is ALREADY flying the plane! *

[AirRabbit]

...we would ALL like it if those numbers prove accurate but even if they are we still can't allow inexperience in the right hand seat to put lives at risk... If an airline can't recruit suitable experience for the F/O position that's their problem... either they offer better T&Cs or they'd better start growing their own crop of future F/Os by putting second officer/junior F/Os whatever you want to call them into the jump seat and letting them watch while tough decisions are being made at the front... they can witness many hours and trips that will demonstrate the good, the bad and the ugly CRM and see a few winters of survival flying before pretending to be pilots.
With so many newbees prepared to fly for food it would cost the airlines little more than the price of the extra useful load and a few hotel room costs... a small price to pay to arrest a decline in public confidence in the regionals.
Don't shoot the messenger ... but, I'm having trouble understanding just who's problem you think we're describing ... because I don't think the airlines are going to think its their problem. The requirements right now (at least in the US) for the right seat in an airline job is to have a commercial, multi-engine certificate with an instrument rating. That equates to between 190 and 250 hours of flight time - including training ... and, also, the pilots must pass the relevant airline training program. There is legislation pending in the US Congress that might require that right seater to have an ATP (which requires 1500 hours and includes the equivalent of an instrument rating) ... and I would presume that it would also require a multi-engine rating, but that wasn't specifically described, according to my sources. I also heard that some have suggested that legislation be modified to include an alternative of requiring airline "new hires" to be a graduate of an accredited school that also has a flight training program.

What you're proposing may sound logical, but, at least in the US, it would require a rather major over-haul of some significant rules and regulations (read that as "a snowball's chance in a very hot place").

You probably should know that Boeing has completed a couple of Beta tests on the ICAO program known as MPL. While the Boeing test graduates took considerably more time than originally described in the ICAO MPL descriptions (ICAO describes something like 250 hours of training time and the Beta Tests took more on the order of 380 - 400 hours), the results are, nonetheless, apparently quite impressive. Until someone comes along with something more logical, less expensive, that provides pilots with better training and/or more experience ... I'd submit that the MPL approach is likely to have the inside track.

[M80]

There is little doubt there ARE these folks out there - and they would likely make for excellent airline entry first officers ... but are there enough of them to supply 400 pilots a month, every month, for 12 years? And that figure is just for the US ... Europe is likely to require somethig similiar - and the Pacific Rim ... at least the same ... perhaps more. And IF (you make the call) those numbers cannot be supplied by whatever source you name, from where are those pilots going to come?

I'd be careful of forecasts. The market is flooded with experienced pilots, and yet every year since 2001, the upturn has been forecasted as being upon us. I have little doubt that the industry will have it's pilots and then some. In the case that it doesn't, then the industry will have to entice people into the flightdeck through selection processes, sponsorship or decent salaries. This will see the return of skill being the selection criteria.

Maybe the MPL is a satisfactory way of filling the shortfall, should there be one. My point was purely to contest the frequently presented scenario of the only alternative to the MPL being a 1000 hour FI bashing out circuits in a C172 whilst trying to move on - a view that you also seem to favour.

...but I’ve seen more than my fair share who take an instructor’s job simply to log the flight time – which can mount up fairly quickly, leaving a relatively inexperienced pilot with an ATP.
You need multi-crew time for the JAR ATPL, which negates this.

[AirRabbit]

My point was purely to contest the frequently presented scenario of the only alternative to the MPL being a 1000 hour FI bashing out circuits in a C172 whilst trying to move on - a view that you also seem to favour.
Actually, I don't favor the "1000 hour FI bashing out circuits in a C172 whilst trying to move on" ... my preference is to have properly qualified and reasonably experienced applicants ... and the "best" I've seen so far, are applicants from the military. However, I've also seen my fair share of "dolts" from the military - and I've wondered how on earth they'd managed to keep from killing themselves before winding up at my desk. The "1000 hour FI bashing out circuits in a C172" would be the very last preference on my list.

If there are an adequate number of corporate pilots and pilots currently flying for the regionals that would take the positions forecast to be available over the next 12 years or so (and I'm fully aware of what forecasts are - and how vulernable they are to changes in the economy, the weather, and whatever else happens by...) I think that would be wonderful. Of course, I would then wonder where the Regionals would go for the replacements they would need to fill behind all the guys leaving to take the jobs with the larger airlines ... but that's another story. If there are some who are leaving the military who would fill in the holes not covered by the corporate and regional guys, that also would be great. And if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their backsides when they jumped off logs. All of this is to say that in my very own personal opinion (humble or not-so-humble as it may be) I think that not embracing the concept of MPL and what it can do for the aviation industry is a mistake.

[M80]

AirRabbit - sorry, it appears that something is getting lost in the translation. I was attempting to express that instructors don't just pound out the hours in the circuit. I think that view does FIs a great injustice of their role in aviation, and felt it was a viewpoint you were furthering. As I said previously, I've never instructed and also had some poor instructors. Having said that, I've had some inspiring and great instructors and owe them a great deal, as I imagine we can all say.

To summarise my two cents:


1st cent
The MPL may well be the industry saviour, as you propose. It will be a much more appropriate qualification when/if the airlines find a shortfall of flightcrew and are required to sponsor training to meet their demand. Perhaps that's what you're also proposing and I've misunderstood? In the meantime, commercial pilots involved in air charter, air taxi and instruction are plentiful enough to fill the void - although less economically attractive.


2nd cent
I find it concerning that some aspiring pilots (http://www.pprune.org/5123592-post9.html) seem to feel that a generic MPL would be an excellent idea. Surely this misconceives the entire pretext of the MPL? How would a generic MPL be more suited to the industry than a CPL?


Hope that clears up the confusion.

[RWEDAREYET]

Haven't read all the posts, but many of them. So I apologize if this has been stated before....

My 2 cents:

1 cent: Compensation package. The reason many of us, myself included, are now flying overseas is compensation. The pay, schedule, time at home and whole package has gone down the crapper over the past several years. There are a few exceptions to the previous rule, but in general, the compensation package for pilot services in the USA sucks!

2 cent: Experience. This is a tough one. What is experience? Is a 8000 hour Captain who has flown for a 121 regional airline in North America since he/she had 500 hours of 172 time more experienced then a 4000 co-pilot who flew world-wide since he/she had 500 hours in a 172. Depends on what your version of experience is?

I know I only said 2 cents, but one last thought...there are good pilots and bad pilots....just like good and bad lawyers, it's part of the profession. 20,000 hours doesn't make you a good captain, nor does 1500 hours.

just my 2 1/2 cents

[AirRabbit]

Lost in translation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
AirRabbit - sorry, it appears that something is getting lost in the translation. I was attempting to express that instructors don't just pound out the hours in the circuit. I think that view does FIs a great injustice of their role in aviation, and felt it was a viewpoint you were furthering. As I said previously, I've never instructed and also had some poor instructors. Having said that, I've had some inspiring and great instructors and owe them a great deal, as I imagine we can all say.
To summarise my two cents:
•1st cent
The MPL may well be the industry saviour, as you propose. It will be a much more appropriate qualification when/if the airlines find a shortfall of flightcrew and are required to sponsor training to meet their demand. Perhaps that's what you're also proposing and I've misunderstood? In the meantime, commercial pilots involved in air charter, air taxi and instruction are plentiful enough to fill the void - although less economically attractive.
•2nd cent
I find it concerning that some aspiring pilots seem to feel that a generic MPL would be an excellent idea. Surely this misconceives the entire pretext of the MPL? How would a generic MPL be more suited to the industry than a CPL?
Hope that clears up the confusion.
•Your 1st cent ... it's not so much that I think MPL will be "a savior" to the industry, but I DO think that, if there is a need for pilots that outstrips the available pilot candidates that have the experience and training that we all would like to see, the MPL may be a very good alternative to rely upon.
•Your 2nd cent ... Contrary to a lot of beliefs, MPL is NOT a generic approach to pilot training. There are 4 phases described under the ICAO developed program. Depending on what you've heard and who you talk to, the 4th phase is to be conducted for a specific airplane and a specific airline. There are some who have interpreted MPL as getting to this specific airplane/airline issue at the start of the 3rd phase. Certainly the 1st and 2nd phases are more "general," and, therefore, generic. But, after that, things are designed to get a lot more specific - as I indicated above. In either version, the design of the program was to provide that when an applicant successfully completed the 4th phase, that person was to be fully capable of stepping into the right seat of a specific airplane for a specific airline and operate as a fully functional, fully safe, first officer.

The Beta Testing of which I am aware (specifically it included Chinese students in training in Australia under a Boeing-conducted, live MPL training program) wound up taking considerably more time than the minimum described in the ICAO documents (which describe a minimum of 240 hours of training - some airplane and a lot of simulation). This Australian-Boeing-Chinese effort took between 380 and 420 hours of training (with only about 50-60 in an airplane, by the way - and it was approximately 7-9 months in duration from the start of phase 1 through the completion of phase 4) ... but the good news is that when completed, the captains interviewed about their "new first officers" flying revenue trips on the line, there wasn't one complaint - and in fact, the comments were surprisingly positive.

There are many really good instructors out there - no doubt! However, there are some who are only instructing to build hours. It's not the student that is the highest on his/her priority list. Are these the majority of instructors out there? Certainly not ... but they do exist - and in numbers far greater than I was aware ... until I saw it with my own eyes ... and it is these so-called instructors that I believe don't make the best of airline pilot candidates.

[protectthehornet]

when I was an instructor, I used it to build hours. but I also was a damn good instructor.

the two are not mutually exclusive.

so, why not just treat pilots well? MONEY.

and that's that. train them well, evaluate them thoroughly, and always do right

[AirRabbit]

when I was an instructor, I used it to build hours. but I also was a damn good instructor.
the two are not mutually exclusive.
so, why not just treat pilots well? MONEY.
and that's that. train them well, evaluate them thoroughly, and always do right
From your lips to the ears of those in charge of airlines today. Those folks used to be former "throttle jockies" ... but alas, today, the preponderance of those decision makers are fugitives from (and, no, I don't mean real fugitives) places like Bank of America, Citicorp, JP Morgan, etc. From their perspective the easiest place to exercise the descision of when, where, how, and how much regarding their expenditure of funds is how much they pay their employees. IF I had the answer, I'd be lolling on the shores of some pristine sand beach, not holed up in some hotel room ... Hmmmm ... now that I think of it, I'm going to suggest that each hotel paint their names and the city on the ceilings above the beds. That way we'll all know where we are the first thing in the morning - afternoon - evening - night ... ah ... well, you know what I mean.

[PJ2]

each hotel paint their names and the city on the ceilings above the beds. That way we'll all know where we are the first thing in the morning - afternoon - evening - night ... ah ... well, you know what I mean.
It's Tuesday. This must be Bangkok.

or,

It's Bangkok. This must either be Christmas or my kid's birthday.

[Shillin3]

FAA Administrator urges professionalism, use of SMS | Pilotbug (http://www.pilotbug.com/?p=1446Randy) Babbitt, the FAA Administrator, stressed more cockpit professionalism in the drive for more safety and fewer accidents at US airlines. In a speech (http://www.faa.gov/news/speeches/news_story.cfm?newsId=10797) to the International Safety Forum today, Mr. Babbitt stated that the difference between the outcomes of the US Airways Flight 1549 and Colgan Flight 3407 was one of “textbook greatness, the other a complete inattention to basic details.”
The Administrator was referring to the contrast between the two flights. The January 15th US Airways flight, which an Airbus 320 was struck by Canada geese after departure from New York’s Laguardia airport was followed by a successful ditching in the Hudson river. The other was the February 13th fatal crash of a Colgan DeHavilland Q400 in Buffalo, NY, in which pilot error was largely determined to be the cause.
Babbitt indicated that in addition to a more professional culture, the airlines should better utilize tools and concepts like the Safety Management System (SMS) (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/6485143d5ec81aae8625719b0055c9e5/$FILE/AC%20120-92.pdf), a set of guidelines and risk management processes designed to increase the safety decision making process. Last month the FAA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (PDF (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-17553.pdf)) concerning the SMS for the airline industry and other aviation operators to adopt.

[Clandestino]

This guy is full of stuff politicians are made of.

Of course there was "a complete inattention to basic details", but how could appeal to professionalism help pilots who lost basic self-preservation instinct? For late mr Renslow and late ms Shaw applied stall recovery procedures contrary to any known one which doesn't include inverted flight (and no half-assed comments on tailplane stalls, please - they don't go together with stickshakers). If they consistently pulled off such a feats they would never, ever be allowed to go solo, let alone be issued with any kind of pilot's licence. It wasn't about experience, it was about being dead tired to the point of incapacitation.

I would take mr Babbit more seriously if he used Pinnacle 3701 to illustrate dangers of being unprofessional. As it i is I'm afraid that while in principle his stressing of importance of being experienced professional is praiseworthy, his real motive is to obscure the systemic causes of Colgan 3407 accident. What needs to be done to prevent another similar mishap is: pay crews sufficiently so they can afford decent accommodation near their base, ban reporting to duty directly after commuting and then really enforce the ban, set rosters in a way that enables crews to safely commute. Of course it won't be done, because (or at least that's what we're told) it would be ruinous for entire airline industry. Seemingly the chosen alternative is to pursue cheaper but ineffective solutions and hope good luck will see us through.... at least till the end of the term.

Just to add to Bealzeub's excellent post (http://www.pprune.org/5125411-post55.html) about dangers of complacency. Donnie Williams, F-4 instructor, was chosen for USAF instructor of the year in 1985. which shows that he was really among the finest aviators. However, ten years later, the peak in Colombia, named El Deluvio, couldn't care less about his or his captain's experience as hopelessly lost B757 flew through the night towards it. Most of you know that there's no "They lived happily ever after" at the end of this story.

[411A]

Last month the FAA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (PDF) concerning the SMS for the airline industry and other aviation operators to adopt.
If adopted, it will do absolutely nothing to enhance airline safety...what it will do however, is formulate another department with which to throw funding at a supposed problem, thereby increasing costs, with absolutely no tangable results.
Put this in the same bin as some of the enhanced CRM psycho-babble baloney that was used in the past.

It's Bangkok. This must either be Christmas or my kid's birthday.
Nevertheless, it's a rotten situation, but...we intend to make the best of it, anyway.:E

[Pugilistic Animus]

if you don't have basic airsense then it does not matter how much time you have most pilots have been trained by several instructors and companies but they know in the back of their minds what's really bad and what's ok and while they might behave in one way in order to please the examiner but they know that there's no chance of that maneuver being successful in real life

10000 hrs of doing the wrong thing does not make it right. The captain of the Colgan flight was also trained that recovery is done with power [not withstanding the false preconceptions he had about tailplane stall wrt his type]

his method most likely worked in the sim wrt to stick shaker indication because increased power does lower the AoA, but a CFI with perhaps 40 hrs of instructing would instinctively lower the nose along with power to decrease height loss and most likely have survived, fatigued or not!

it not even necessarily that the pilot's have little experience---you can be trained to push buttons on anything,... I worry more about the abilities of the people training them who may not be the most knowledgeable characters for without a good background the naivety of the low hour/ low experience trainees causes them basically defenseless against improper training :ugh:It would be a different story if pilots were more proactive/ less passive wrt to aeronautical knowledge and training but the trend today is just get through it as fast as possible and go earn your peanuts so you can impress the ground people:rolleyes:


WR to SMS well if we continue with a blame culture instead of a safety culture then it will fail or be abused and become dangerous but it is now a basic fact of life hopefully it will be used ethically---though I have doubts

PA

[p51guy]

Donnie in the Cali Columbia crash was an international pilot that flew to Europe and was not familiar with Cali approaches. Procedures then before GPS was to back everything up with raw data. Unfortunately in the process of doing that both pilots lost track of where they were because they were tuning in NDB's etc. but selected the same NDB as Bogota, Columbia which the FMC sent them east instead of south. R was the NDB for both airports for the FMC. Why both of them let this happen? I don't know. I flew that trip for many months after the crash and never saw a problem. Complacency was my guess for the cause. I learned never to start thinking about what you are doing after landing until the parking brake is set.

[Huck]

I learned never to start thinking about what you are doing after landing until the parking brake is set.

Yeah they were worried about the flight attendants not getting legal rest and delaying the next day's departure.

Some other lessons from that one:

1. One guy only on the FMS. Resist the urge to watch what the other guy does.

2. Never ever ask for direct at night in South America. You can never be in that much of a hurry. Fly the airways as long as you can.

3. My personal policy: 250 below 12k, 220 below 10k down there also.

[singpilot]

The most incredible comment I ever heard at my retirement soiree' was several young whippersnappers get up and say that since I stopped flying, the nose of every aircraft in the fleet was 6 miles shorter.

That each and every one of them was flying, effortlessly, at that moment, something pondered and planned for 6 miles back. That I had instilled that in them.

One of them said he planned his amourous activities later that evening, in the crew van, while still 6 miles from the hotel because of his time spent flying with me.

The point here.... if you stay ahead of the airplane, surprises are simply an opportunity to execute a previously discussed plan.

[Clandestino]

his method most likely worked in the sim wrt to stick shaker indication because increased power does lower the AoA

What method?

Drill for "approach to stall recovery" on Q400 is to add power, release the backpressure and level the wings at the onset of the stickshaker. Applied timely it is guaranteed to work in real world. It absolutely doesn't include items such as: "pull the nose up from 10° ANU to 31°" or "fight the stickpusher" or "retract the flaps below Vfri".

I worry more about the abilities of the people training them who may not be the most knowledgeable characters for without a good background the naivety of the low hour/ low experience trainees causes them basically defenseless against improper training

I feel that your worry might be somewhat misplaced; not that there is no need to worry about pilots being misled by bad training but your notion that only low hour/low experience pilots are vulnerable is somewhat at odds with the real life. Late Mr Molin was quite experienced and yet he failed to apprehend that AAAMP's recommendation about using rudder with ailerons to increase roll rate is applicable only to high bank/high AoA upsets. Used while dealing with relatively small disturbance at modest AoA it turned out to be lethal.

Defense against the purveyors of dangerous ideas in aviation is the real knowledge. It comes cheaper if it's based on someone else's experience than your own. And there are some folks who are unable to buy it with thousands of their hours.

Donnie in the Cali Columbia crash was an international pilot that flew to Europe and was not familiar with Cali approaches.

And the captain? Aren't two pilots on the flightdeck supposed to give some redundancy? What's the significance anyway? That you can get away with anything over flat terrain? When the crew set Romeo instead of Rozo as fly-to waypoint, the aeroplane made almost ninety degrees turn to the left - instead of flying south towards the airport, it turned east. Whether in USA, Russia, China, Kyrgyzstan or Luxembourg, people who make a fraction of such a navigation blunder on skill test are not issued instrument rating and have to redo it. Now you see why.

Never ever ask for direct at night in South America.

Now I'll put my capt. Obvious hat on: when under procedural control, never ask for or accept direct routing. Cases when it's completely safe to do so are so few and far apart that they're not worth the risk. Also treat radar controls of suspicious quality as if they were procedural.

[pilotbear]

this issue starts way back in flight schools where they train FOR the CPl/IR test. There is no extra capacity, they know the route, they know the now 'in house' examiner and what is expected. Therefore, they pass the test. There is very little 'testing' outside the normal on the type rating and then people are launched into real life.... If nothing goes wrong they are in the left seat:eek:

[Pugilistic Animus]

Drill for "approach to stall recovery" on Q400 is to add power, release the backpressure and level the wings at the onset of the stickshaker. Applied timely it is guaranteed to work in real world. It absolutely doesn't include items such as: "pull the nose up from 10° ANU to 31°" or "fight the stickpusher" or "retract the flaps below Vfri".ANU what's weight and balance got to do with it:}

seriously, not Approach to stall; I mean stall

PA

[Pugilistic Animus]

Yes Clandestino, we are all subject unfortunately to Brain in the Butt syndrome---I just stopped calling the Cirrus' Avidyne Entegra system the Garmin G-1000 because I was very very lazy and passive while flying with the FBO's 'checkout' instructor---but couple brain in butt with lack of knowledge or experience with perhaps physiological stress and it's a bad recipe---no, I'm still not allowed to fly alone in the Cirrus :O

PA