Let's make our Profession prestigious again

[despegue]

In order to save our profession, I suggest that we start with increasing the difficulty of the ATPL schooling. First thing to do is the elimination of the Question Bank. Any fool can nowadays learn the answers by heart and get a licence. Increase the difficulty level of several subjects, eg. Principles of flight, Performance, Meteorology and Aircraft General Knowledge. Put an Aerobatics course back in the flight-syllabus.
We also need to start to better assess potential ATPL students on their coordination, mathematics, physics etc. Just as happened 15 years ago.

The profession of an Airline pilot has always been seen as highly skilled and was regarded as prestigeous. over the last few years we have let this devellop into being glorified bus drivers. I say NO MORE.

In Spain, pilots with 1500h (unfrozen ATPL) are considered Engineers with a University Degree. This is our aim.

[Huck]

It's the free market, muchacho.

Make it a well paid profession again and you'll get good talent again.

My father made $400,000 a year (in today's dollars) to fly 747's. He had classmates with PhD's and JD's, and former astronauts.

Now , paywise, this job is one step above Walmart manager. With worse hours....

[captjns]

One can start by quit being a whore:mad:!

[punk666]

The way management see it is that pilots DONT fly the aircraft no more just monitor it, so why should they get paid $400,000 a year to "fly" it if a monkey can do it.

I think with technology getting better the skill of flying is dying out slowly,
the idea of an aerobatics course in the syllabus is a good idea and increases safety with unusaul attitude awareness.

When I was obtaining my ATPL my ground instructor was in a meeting with the CAA about the use of question banks. The question banks are not official there just questions people remember and they talk about it in the class room and some one has decided to make money out of it, so you cant stop it in a way, but instead have 10 different versions of the same question so people cant jsut remember A,B or C

[bo738]

Thats really nice. Just tell me, did you ever passed an JAA ATPL test? Its really challenging.

[bo738]

Well written. Im also captain for some years and never experienced RTO or OEI. But I know some problems which happened. It doesnt matter if someone is engineeur or something else. It is in man, what to do. You have to decide. No tests will prepare for that. I think that all pilots are captains or copilots. There can be only one thing that select this two categories: you have judgement or not.

[bearfoil]

Sorry, there is no "again". It has left the station. It is leaving every day as gray haired Captains get the Hose. It isn't the Industry, in case you haven't looked, it is the way we live, and the culture we tolerate. As we look to others to serve us, to make us wealthy, scold us, and pamper us, our decay as a living society marches on. Looking to an answers booklet explains without explaining. We, as a people, get what we want, as a group, and when the group loses its anchorage, we may as well sit and watch.

It is an inside job, asking for stricter rules after we allow a "C" grade to pass for an "A" is only demanding a continuation of average.

We must demand more of ourselves and our children from within, not look to others to design our journey. The left seat for me was an accomplishment in my top two or three. Mine.The "Group" feeds the hungry, it mustn't live our lives.

Prestige is a Lie. Look around at all the idiot "famous". That is notoriety, not prestige. One cannot fit a team into the left seat.

[VONKLUFFEN]

What difference would it make if I could explain the Einsteins theory of relativity and all the knowledge that is below of it or at Wikipedia in full? I have been flying for 29 years already and I have never had to divert or perform a RTO just because I don't know math and so many other things. Don't pretend we are Gods like people used to believe we were. Get a license and then become a real pilot. Study your stuff, be disciplined, work hard , be smart, etc. I know many doctors that "study a lot" to get where they are. However, medical staff and institutions kill more people than a lousy ATPL holder. It is not what you know but how you use your knowledge.
The next text will help to explain my point. Im not a smart guy and with any degree under my belt :sad:

WHAT MAKES A PILOT "STREET SMART"

ABOUT FLYING ?

Original idea from United Airlines (Safetyliner)



What makes a pilot "street smart" about flying? By "street smart" we mean:

awareness of the essential aspects of flying; ability to know where and when to find

critical information; ability to detect and compensate for the mistakes of others;

ability to avoid the subtle traps and pitfalls found in the flying environment; and ability to

complete a 30-year career without any accidents or serious incidents. Thousands of

pilots do this each year - complete a very successful 30-year career without a single

incident or accident. Is this just luck, or are there specific identifiable reasons for these

superb records?



To find the answer to this question, Safetyliner conducted some years ago a telephone survey with selected pilots in the industry. Each pilot had at least 25 years of

experience. Our group included pilots from six countries and from airframe manufacturers, NASA test pilots, military pilots, UAL line pilots, Chief Pilots, Fleet Captains and instructors. In each case they posed the following

questions, and then let the interviewee respond as he or she saw fit.





1) What, in your opinion, makes a pilot "street smart" about flying?

2) To what do you attribute the fact that you have never had an accident?

3) Will you share with Safetyliner's readers your thoughts, techniques or strategies which

have helped you achieve this excellent safety record?

4) Are there any systems or factors which you consider more important than others?

5) Do you consciously monitor any particular areas to increase your awareness of critical

safety items?

6) If you were to advise a new, minimal experience Captain about how to avoid the pitfalls

of flying, what would you tell him or her? Safetyliner was surprised that the answers covered a very wide spectrum of topics; therefore, they grouped the responses into three categories :



· Attitude or Mind Set - a predisposition to do things in a certain way.

· Teamwork, Crew Coordination, and Crew Interaction.

· Awareness - individual techniques and strategies, specific items to monitor.

The responses are not ranked or put into any particular order and are presented as close to the original comment as possible. Many of the responses were very similar, in which case Safetyliner selected the most comprehensive comment.



ATTITUDE - MIND SET

• There's almost nothing that needs to be done in a hurry in an aircraft.

• Plan ahead for normal events and be prepared for unexpected contingencies.

• Pay attention to your sixth sense. If something feels wrong, it probably is.

• Develop an assertive attitude and openly communicate concerns to other crewmembers.

• Keep your options open -never become committed to a single course of action with a high degree of risk.

• The way to be safe is never to be comfortable.

• If you are getting rushed or overloaded, slow down even if it means delaying pushback, delaying takeoff or even holding.

• Flying must be the focus of your interest; you must want to do a good job. Stick to Standard Operating Procedures unless they are obviously inadequate.

• Return to basics if you become confused.

• Maintain a healthy level of suspicion.

• Even though pilots sometimes like to give the opposite impression, a true professional is

responsible, diligent and studious.

• Eliminate distractions and maintain an alert, vigilant mental state.

• Avoid complacency; the minute you think something won't hurt you - it will!

• Never go on a flight with a head full of problems; leave them on the ground or stay on the ground yourself.

• Be especially vigilant when everything is going well. For example, the difficult approaches like CRW, SAN, MDW, HKG, or poor students (if you instruct) won't hurt you since you are already alert and aware of the risk. You must resist the tendency to become complacent when everything looks normal.

• Be open minded to constructive criticism.

• Always fly in the same standard way regardless of whether it is a normal line flight, an enroute check, or a proficiency check.

• The common thread among all survivors is common sense.

• The things that get pilots in trouble are incorrect premises and fixation.

• Don't become complacent; sit on the edge of your seat; never take anything for granted; never become relaxed; question everything; stay alert.

• Never assume anything, but verify and cross-check all critical information.

• A pilot must be able to adapt; no two situations are the same.

TEAMWORK - CREW COORDINATION - CREW INTERACTION

• Share information with your crew. To the extent that you share information with them, they will share information with you and tell you if you have made a mistake.

• Don't try to do everything yourself.

• Use SOP's so everyone knows what to expect.

• Surprises are nice on birthdays and Christmas, but have no place in aviation. Let everyone know what you are thinking, planning, and doing.

• Always question; don't assume.

• The first thing the Captain should do is to mold the crew into a team.

• Briefings are very important; talk through what you are going to do; everyone should participate.

• Use your crew; frequently I have found another crewmember has just the information I need.

• Evaluate the people you fly with -to understand and compensate for their strengths and

weaknesses.

• Maintain redundancy in the cockpit. The pilot not flying must cross-check the actions of the pilot flying and bring discrepancies to his attention.

• Communication among the crew, and especially with ATC, is critical in today's saturated ATC system.

AWARENESS - TECHNIQUES - STRATEGIES



• It is important to have mentally prepared strategies to deal with critical operational situations. For example, if you lost an engine in a B-767 at 30 degrees West, where would you go? What if you were in a B-747?

• Flying safely is effectively managing change. The items which I monitor vary with whatever is changing. For example, before beginning to taxi, I think about the risks and problems associated with taxiing. Items like - receipt and dispatch procedures, maximum breakaway thrust, taxi route, wingtip clearances, avoiding runway incursions, etc. Before takeoff, I review the performancedata, RTO procedures, engine-out procedures, the departure route and terrain proximity. Any time something changes - and it can be a small item like a 4,000 ft altitude change or cross-feeding fuel -there are new risks which must be monitored and managed. My briefings also focus on whatever is changing so there will be total crew awareness.

• Pilots should give equal priority to landing or going around. Never assume that any approach will end in a landing.

• Know what data is driving the flight director bars and always monitor and believe the raw data.





• Awareness is the sum total of a lot of little things which vary with the phase of flight. For example, prior to taxiing, I review the taxi route in relation to the active runways; prior to taxiingonto the takeoff runway, I clear the approach path (one time in 38 years of flying there was an aircraft on a 1/4 mile final); prior to beginning descent, I review my fuel options; prior to landing I calculate where the glide slope intersects the runway and the length of remaining runway. These things are not taught in training - you must figure them out yourself.

• Detailed knowledge of the Flight Management System (FMS) is essential in all glass-cockpit aircraft.

• Develop a rule of thumb for validating V2 and VREF on every takeoff and landing.

• During overwater operations, fuel, or lack of it, can quickly limit your options and should thereforebe considered a critical system.

• Trouble can begin when the wheels touch the runway; yet everybody seems to relax then.

• Pay special attention to memorizing all of the FMS applications. It is important during critical phases of flight to be able to quickly get the information you need without thinking about how to do it.

• Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT), runway excursions, runway incursions, and high speed RTO's are the greatest safety risks in aviation today.

• Before each flight, I typically spend about one hour at home reviewing the route and airport information. If it is my first flight into an international airport, the time required will be 2-4 hours.

• During international operations, pay particular attention to the meticulous details of navigational procedures.

• Maintain a terrain awareness and a general knowledge of the topography over which you are flying.

• Commit SOP'S, limitations and emergency procedures to memory, to free up mental capacity to deal with unforeseen events - the more you know, the more time you will have.

• After each flight or proficiency check, I debrief myself and record items I want to change in a

notebook. The act of writing it down causes me to memorize the change.

• Know where you want to be, where you are, and where you are going.

• The Captain must always be able to recognize the onset of inattention in himself or his crew.

• You don't know what you don't know. The secret of a long, safe flying career is to reduce the "don't know" category as much as possible.

• Don't touch a switch without looking and knowing what, when, and why you want to move it.

• Be totally aware of what is around you, particularly during takeoff and landings.

• The very best pilots I have checked out have consistently demonstrated the ability to see the big picture and not become fixated on anything. Even during approaches in minimum weather conditions, they don't become "locked" on the gauges until inside the outer marker.

• It seems to me there are three levels of awareness: The first is the awareness which comes from completing a typical transition course - systems knowledge, SOP'S, normal, irregular, emergency procedures, and initial operating experience. Next is the awareness which comes from information from others - asking questions, inquiry, crew coordination, CLR, etc. Finally comes the awareness which comes from continually reading the books and manuals; figuring out the traps of flying; and developing personal strategies, techniques and habit patterns to deal with them. This third area is the most difficult and requires considerable personal commitment and discipline.

• You don't have time to make all of the mistakes, so you have to learn from others. I review all accidents and ask myself what would I have done? How could I have avoided the accident?

• If anything is out of the ordinary or if the aircraft is not performing the way you think it should, check it out.

• Develop effective listening skills including the ability to filter out lower priority information and return to it later.

• Listen to others and find out how they do things - then re-evaluate your own habit patterns.

• Always have both a plan and a contingency plan. For example, I review destination and

alternate airport weather an hour before landing and then calculate the required fuel from the primary holding fix to the runway and then to the alternate airport.

• If there is any doubt about an ATC clearance, I ask for confirmation from ATC.

CONCLUSIONS



We hope the above comments collectively present some insight into how a selected group of pilots have completed over 1,000 years of accident-free flying. We are not suggesting that everyone accomplish each of these techniques. The comments should be regarded as items which some pilots find useful.

It is very interesting to note that none of the responses involved the "stick and rudder" aspects of flying. From a safety perspective, this is right on target since it is hard to think of an accident in which the pilot couldn't fly the aircraft. While the engine-out on takeoff, engine-out approach to Category 11 minimums, engine-out missed approach and non-precision approach maneuvers may be the causes of most repeated items in proficiency checks, they are not the causes of most accidents. When accidents are classified as "pilot error," it is almost never because of a 11 stick-and-rudder" deficiency, but rather because of some event that perhaps could have been overcome with one or more of the techniques noted above.

Now is my turn to help and support those "stupid cadettes" Mhhhh sounds familiar. Oh ! I once was one of those. However, I have never forgotten the fact.

"We should take care not to make the intellect our god. It has , of course, powerful muscles, but no personality"
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler"

A Einstein.

Make your conclusions.

[ab33t]

Ok lets all get stuck in. Everybody starts from the begining again.

[virgo]

Despegue, in the event that you were able to restore the "prestige" (whatever that means ?) of pilots, I'd be interested to know how you would expect that to be manifested among the non-piloting fraternity ?

[Ocampo]

Excellent post Vonkluffen! I am going to save that in my pc. This should be shown in flight schools as part of the CRM/Air Safety lessons!

The way management see it is that pilots DONT fly the aircraft no more just monitor it, so why should they get paid $400,000 a year to "fly" it if a monkey can do it.I beg to differ, mon frere. Try to make a monkey ditch an airplane full of people with all engines out due to bird strikes in a river with a virtually intact airframe and no serious injuries whatsoever. Try to make another monkey to land a fuel-exhausted A330 in a couple of islands in the North Atlantic after gliding for quite a significant amount of time and even circling and getting away with merely some blown tires. Or maybe a monkey could fly an hydraulic failed A300 with a wing on fire and land it with absolutely no damage? The list goes on forever...

The airplane may "fly itself" but it can't think for itself; that's when we come in. :ok:

[EI-CON]

Well said Vonkluffen! Very good post:ok::D

[punk666]

Ocampo,

I see your point indeed and I agree 100% and I think us pilots should get paid good money. But this is management we are talking about here!!

I was told that someone at Easyjet suggested that pilots should get pay matching there work..I.e you sit there and do nothing you get paid hardly anything.
In my honest opinion they way it is going, pilots are only there for when the sh*t hits the fan not to fly the plane and thats what they get paid for.

It still amazes me that in the past 100 years we went from discovering powered flight to planes that fly themselfs with 840 pax on board. In another 100 years may be everyone will be flying something what happens then? taxi drivers charging 100 pound a journey! Or may be pilots will control the aircraft from the ground via satellite a bit like the 'predator'.

[Paradise Lost]

• Pay attention to your sixth sense. If something feels wrong, it probably is.

Outstanding post Vonkluffen....that should be every professional pilot's mantra. I highlighted the quote above only because that defines when you have enough experience to be ready to move to the left hand seat.
The whole post is all you need to discuss in recurrent CRM training.

[Paolo]

VONKLUFFEN

Thank You! Great post

Paolo

[Anansis]

I beg to differ, mon frere. Try to make a monkey ditch an airplane full of people with all engines out due to bird strikes in a river with a virtually intact airframe and no serious injuries whatsoever. Try to make another monkey to land a fuel-exhausted A330 in a couple of islands in the North Atlantic after gliding for quite a significant amount of time and even circling and getting away with merely some blown tires. Or maybe a monkey could fly an hydraulic failed A300 with a wing on fire and land it with absolutely no damage? The list goes on forever...

The problem is that it takes extraordinary circumstances for you guys to be able to show what a difference you make.

(Apologies for commenting. I am not a professional pilot, but I am an intelligent, professional, hard working young man who decided not to pursue a career in seat A0 beacuse of all the baggage that now comes with the job- quite relevant to the discussion :().

[S76Heavy]

In my view Vonkluffen's post warrants a sticky in the crm forum. Read this first before posting..:ok:

As for the rest, I suppose it is a sign of the times. Nobody respects anybody anymore; policemen are attacked, doctors are disrespected, it is only natural that the public sees us as expendable and expensive ornaments as that is how many of them view the world as a whole; if it is not there to suit their immediate desires, it is surplus and disposable.

You get what you tolerate. In our world we have become a consumer driven society where everybody knows the price of everything and the value of nothing, as has been aptly stated before.
To reinstate respect for pilots you need to reinstate respect for everybody who works in a professional manner. Sadly, when our own managements regard us as mere "assets", if not liabilities as can be deducted from the phrase "Human Resources" and the short term cost-benefit view of those who nowadays run the companies, it will not happen in my lifetime and I have a fair number of years to go.

The best we can do is ensure we are always professional, so at least among ourselves we recognise professionalism and respect it. That also entails not speaking derogatively about others especially in public, for in dfoing so we confirm the negative image that is out there anyway. That does not mean that we cannot entertain some of those thoughts in private, but every pilot who is seen to act in what the public defines as less than professional conduct, does a disservice to the profession.

So if you want to be treated as the professional you are, be seen to act like the professional you are. And even then there is no guarantee, but at least you have the satisfaction of doing it right.

[kms901]

The mystique of aviation has gone and it won't come back. Everybody travels by air, everybody has Flight Simulator.

And as for being a profession, Doctors, Solicitors, Priests and Company Directors can sign your passport application as a reponsible member of the community, but can airline pilots ?

[virgo]

Is a British Airways CSD a Company Director ?

[Bona Fide]

Lets face the airline business is a victim of it's own success....

If flying has lost its prestige then why are so many people aspiring to become pilots? If these same wannabes have spent even 5 minutes looking at some of the threads on this forum (which I am sure many many of them have), and the terms and conditions are so bad - what attracts them?

Both Airbus and Boeing forecast a doubling in the size of the world's commercial aircraft fleet in the next 20 years. In fact their forecasts have been bullish for the last 10 years. Who did/do you think is going to fly these aircraft? The same physics, science or math graduates who can go to the city of London and be millionaires by the age of 30 robbing their grannies of their pensions? Get real!!

If you have come into this business in the last 10 years thinking you were joining some exclusive club then frankly you are beyond saving.

The fact of the matter is there are still good flying jobs out there that pay a decent crack, you just have to work hard to get them. The fact that people don't trip overthemselves in awe at your god like abilities to is neither here nor there.

[A and C]

On the basis of being a Licenced aircraft maintenance engineer I sign passport applications and the authoritys are happy with this.
I have never tried to use my ATPL status for this.........perhaps I should with the next one!

[horsebadorties]

Excellent post! I can't help noticing that the info originated with United. Perhaps some of those stalwart defenders of the captain in the offload incident might like to reconsider and take some of these messages on board? Consideration mixes better with competence than arrogance.

[Ocampo]

I was told that someone at Easyjet suggested that pilots should get pay matching there work..I.e you sit there and do nothing you get paid hardly anything.
In my honest opinion they way it is going, pilots are only there for when the sh*t hits the fan not to fly the plane and thats what they get paid for.


Errr, once again, I beg to differ, mon frere. As I said earlier; airplanes can fly themselves but they cannot think for themselves. I.e.: They can take commands, the ones YOU put in, but they will not give commands themselves.

They will not go: "Hmm, the wx report seems like there's going to be some heavy rainshowers with heavy crosswinds; I better ask somebody what's the wx like in my filed alternate. I should have a look at my fuel if I plan to deviate". See my point? Only a human, a PILOT, will do those things. Flying an airplane (read: Being a professional pilot) is not just one hand on the yoke and the other one on the throttles. It involves a sensational way of using your brain and all of your senses. And an airplane will not have that nowhere near (if ever!)

Sure automation might be a pilot's best friend if used correctly, but it can become quite rapidly in a pilot's worst enemy (see AA965 near Cali, Colombia, mid 1990's); and when that happens it's time to switch all the way back to basics as if one were all over again on flight schools. And that doesn't mean that :mad: has hit the fan; it's going to hit it if one lets the situation evolve. It takes a trained professional pilot (without disrespecting the AA965 pilots) to get the flight back on track: The airplane will not do it (and I think it will never do it) by itself.

everybody has Flight Simulator

Right on spot! There seems to be so-called pilots everywhere now...bloody PC "pilots"! You can use it to learn lots of stuff if it is used in a proper way, but nevertheless, it will never EVER be like flying a real airplane.

Best regards.

Ed

[punk666]

Ocampo,

I agree with what you are saying 100% I am not agreeing with the fact pilots should get paid hardly anything for there skill in flying aircraft.

Seeing as your from Colombia may be your not translating my comments correctly and getting the wrong end of the stick. But I understand if that is the case:)

[despegue]

The reason why I posted this is to stirr-up reactions.
This does seem to work...

Look, we are faced with pay-to-fly cadets, who hand money to fly commercially. Why is that? Simple: Because there is a vast overcapacity of young inexperienced pilots.
Make the entry into our profession harder and you will create a pilot shortage in the long-term, which is what we need to regain our conditions we had before. At the same time, we need to improve training and skill on the flightdeck. Captaincy seems to become a dying trade. Stick and rudder has to be taught from the first day at the flight academy as is captaincy. How can anyone say nowadays that gaining an ATPL is difficult?! What would they have done 10 years ago before the JAA examinations and the question-banks?! That was university level, but given four times as fast.
It are not only the Airlines who need to change their behaviour towards their Officers (and yes, that is what we are, some tend to forget it seems), but also the regulatory instances and ourselves.

[Final 3 Greens]

And as for being a profession, Doctors, Solicitors, Priests and Company Directors can sign your passport application as a reponsible member of the community, but can airline pilots ?

Yes.

Who can countersign your application? : Directgov - Travel and transport (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Passports/Applicationinformation/DG_174151)

So can journalists.

[Nicholas49]

And '(qualified) travel agents'...

[seaskimmer]

If you want to have a prestigious, well paid and respected carreer then go on X-factor or get sillicone implants.

[Teddy Robinson]

is for the bar to be replaced at it's previous level by the regulatory bodies.

The bar used to include minimum experience levels just to take the written exams for cpl issue, one was not allowed to take the ATPL exams unless you had at least 700 hours ... in other words, you had to go and do them all again so it was as well to know your subject.

Sorry if that offends some people, but the profession has to return to a quality driven model rather than a quantity driven one.

Not sure about "prestige" in the thread title, it ain't ego driven, fact is that the good should come through to the industry joining an airline flight deck as captains in training ... based on ability, aptitude, and a decent level of experience.

Just my thoughts, but I suspect I am not alone.

[Ocampo]

But this is management we are talking about here!!

Seeing as your from Colombia may be your not translating my comments correctly and getting the wrong end of the stick. But I understand if that is the case

Okay mate, I think you're right; that may be a factor :)

On the "management" side of things, I agree with you (and some others). Companies (especially the big ones) treat us like we are not humans.

Here's an example:

Work/rest and duty assignment regulations in this country implies that you cannot have more than 5 consecutive assignments (days), except in one: the 6th assignment can only be as a "Tripadi" (additional crew member, I think it is known in English as dead-head, is that right?). So said company interprets this wrongly and they decided to put the dead-head anywhere between those 6 consecutive days (as a blank day) taking away one possible rest time and making pilots fly 6 consecutive days! Moreover, at the end of the month pilots could be right on the limit (90 hours) or even being at the limit before the month ends because they are doing 6 legs (each of 45 mins in average) on a single day. I don't know much about it, but it seems a bit excessive to me.

I remember I once heard a F/O friend of mine saying "they are kicking the tombstone, and one of these days the tombstone will fly and hit an airplane"

Not too long ago there was the mess in Europe with the work/rest regulations: Dead-tired.

As someone said earlier: Being a pilot these days seems to be above a Wal-Mart manager, but with worse hours.

[superdimona]

In Spain, pilots with 1500h (unfrozen ATPL) are considered Engineers with a University Degree. This is our aim.

Er, what? Isn't that like saying "experienced doctors are considered Solicitors with professional qualifications"?

[rant on]

I'm all for pilots gaining extra respect, but pilots and professional engineers do 2 very different jobs. I just dont see how 1500 hour pilots are qualified to do the things engineers can do (eg designing electronic circuits, buildings, mines, machines etc depending on discpline).

As an engineer, one of the things that really bugs me is people upsurping the title. The general public sees "sanitation engineers" (rubbish collectors) "sales engineers" (marketing) "Microsoft Certified Sysgtems Engineers" (sysadmins) etc etc. None of these people could solve a differential equation to save their lives.

Here's a link to an Australian syllabus: Course list for the Bachelor of Engineering - Courses and Programs - The University of Queensland, Australia (http://www.uq.edu.au/study/program_list.html?acad_prog=2001) - I'd imagine it isn't that different from a USA or European one. Please tell me how the ATPLs, which are certainly tricky, go into the same depth as a 4 year fulltime university program.

[rant off]

I wish you the best of luck increasing the status for your profession. In the process, please don't contribute to the decline of mine.

[Bona Fide]

We can whinge about it all day (and we do) but at some stage you have to face facts and they are that our profession has changed (and it is a profession).


On restricting supply to improve T’s & C’s:

Errrr no -if you think this is going to improve your lot then think again!:=


Pilot numbers have ballooned. Why? Because so has air travel!! Not because of self-sponsored pilots or people buying type-ratings, etc, etc. Stop blaming things like this for your predicament because this and many of our other complaints are effects and not the cause. Much of this growth has come from LCC’s who operate on an entirely different philosophy. Have you not heard the term ‘New Model Airline’?:confused:


And what is more:


More passengers = more airlines = more aircraft = more jobs:)

There is one thing that trying school cannot equip new pilots with and that is experience. The target is the LHS so if you maintain appropriate experience requirements and standards to attain this (which all operators should) then this creates a barrier that really is worth something: experience cannot be bought. I fully appreciate that it is F/O salaries that are the worst affected by this contemporary state of affairs but you just have to keep in mind your long-term objective and find a job that gives you a clear path to your goal. And in reality this is really no different to any other profession. :ok:

[D O Guerrero]

Despegue - you clearly don't know much about modern pilot training. It's not easy, I don't care what you say. If you visited a modern integrated course you would see the dedication and hard work that goes into achieving a frozen ATPL. 6 months full time groundschool - followed by at least 12 months flying training - all unpaid ("Daddy's money" is a rarity in my experience). Would you do it? It is bloody hard work frankly. Yes there are question banks, but they do not help with all the exams. You still need hard work and study to achieve the results. Many people complete these courses with a background of financial and family problems and they do so in a thoroughly professional way. The flying training is also not easy and is not completed by a large number of people who are chopped at all stages of the training. You know as well as I do that passing a multi-IR is no mean feat especially when its done on some antiquated bucket with no modern equipment. THEN you have to find a job, again not easy. Many people do not get through sim-checks etc because their flying skills are simply not upto it. Once you have a job you have to pass the TR - with a background only on (at best) light twins, it is a major achievement to get through it with a first time pass and then complete line training.
Stop blaming other people for your own problems. The dedicated youngsters who aspire to be airline pilots should be applauded, not put down. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[minimany]

"If you want to have a prestigious, well paid and respected carreer then go on X-factor or get sillicone implants."

Fantastic Sea skimmer! The funniest yet most unfortunately true thing that I have read for a long time

[pilot999]

close down PPrune:)

[Guttn]

There are several aspects which contribute to worsening of our T&Cs. I`ll name a few; possibly too many airlines (not aircraft) competing for the flying public as to barely make somewhat of a profit; an abundance of young, aspiring pilots with a major lack of experience willing to pay good money to fly commercially; an almost complete automation of modern-day aircraft, reducing pilots to systems operators.

Money means everything in aviation. Ask anybody! But which way the cashflow is heading is another aspect. You an buy many things; a uniform, your lunch, charts, a typerating, commercial flight hours, etc etc. But there is one thing that cannot be bought, and that is experience:D. You can also ask yourself why fewer airlines consider a high experience level (flying) not to be much of an asset anymore, rather than paying to get in the front door:yuk:. But it seems times are changing again, perhaps for the better. The accidents and incidents in the US has brought attention to a few things which have been lacking the last 5-10 years. And to top it off, the Hudson River landing clearly shows how experience is a benefit, and why experienced pilots should be compensated accordingly.

To all up-and-comers; first thing is to get some experience. Do some instructing, air taxi, freight hauling at night, whatever it takes really, as long as you don`t cop out and buy yourself a job (yes, I know a lot of flight schools more than encourage you to do so). Think long term investment in your own well-being and porfessional career. And don`t forget to enjoy yourself when taking that road:ok:

[gone till november]

superdimona

[QUOTE]Please tell me how the ATPLs, which are certainly tricky, go into the same depth as a 4 year fulltime university program./QUOTE]

Hmmmm. Good question.

Lets take the average degree programme which takes three years. In that time each year your "in college" for 7-8 months as you get 4-5 months holiday so lets consider that at 24 months.

Within that time you are not in lectures all day every day but im not going to remove that from the equation so we'll keep that at 24 months.

The average intergrated course lasts some 14-16 months with only about 3-4 weeks time off within that so lets average it 15 months which is some 9 months behind your 24 months.

Then you have to factor in the two years it takes to attain/unfreeze your ATPL with 1500hrs of flying and you are still learning. Don't forget within those two years you still face a career ending two medicals, four simulator checks, two line checks, SEP's and one LST.

Ok so within those 24 months you may have around 3 months holidays so we'll call that 21 months.

Now by my estimation thats 36 months of training and experience and more exams and tests that you can shake a stick at.

You as an engineer concentrate on one thing....engineering in what ever form it might take.

As a pilot we study a variety of subjects that leads to a whole ranging from the arts like law to the sciences including electrical mechanical and hydraulic engineering let alone psycological and physialogical matters like CRM etc etc etc. As one whit put it a pilot is a jack of all trades master of one

So is a fully issued ATPL the equivalent of a degree....who's to say. Certainly the lecturers at my flying college with engineering (electrical and aeronautical) degrees thought so.

Personally i think the Spanish have it just about right.

Don't get me wrong im not trying to degrade your career but i certainly don't think you have a FULL understanding of what it takes to get an ATPL issued. There is noting ostensibly difficult about the ATPL's but just an awful lot of stuff to learn.....i ended up with 14 full foolscap folders full of stuff to know.

As for the original subject i still think this career has the cachet from the responses i get when people ask us what i do for a living.

[superdimona]

Hi Gone,

Please don't get me wrong, I'm NOT saying that an aviation career takes less effort a college degree. I realise it's a hell of a lot of work to make it in this game. On the other hand I know of a few university courses that have the local nickname "Bachelor of Attendance" - because all you seem to need to do to get one is show up.

I was responding to the statement


In Spain, pilots with 1500h (unfrozen ATPL) are considered Engineers with a University Degree. This is our aim.

Lets take the average degree programme which takes three years. In that time each year your "in college" for 7-8 months as you get 4-5 months holiday so lets consider that at 24 months.

Within that time you are not in lectures all day every day but im not going to remove that from the equation so we'll keep that at 24 months.

An engineering degree is four years. Yes, you are not in lectures all day, however there are tutorials and labs to attend as well as various projects to complete. Naturally students have to study the theory as well (I don't know a single engineering student who honestly never studied). I don't see how anyone could squash 4 years worth of subjects into 2 years.

Medicals, simulator checks, and flight training qualify you to be a pilot - they have nothing whatsoever to do with being an engineer. If I spend 10 years as a carpenter, it won't help me be a good baker.


You as an engineer concentrate on one thing....engineering in what ever form it might take.

As a pilot we study a variety of subjects that leads to a whole ranging from the arts like law to the sciences including electrical mechanical and hydraulic engineering let alone psycological and physialogical matters like CRM etc etc etc. As one whit put it a pilot is a jack of all trades master of one


I think the vast majority of engineering programs make students 'branch out' rather then spend 100% of their time on the one specific area. Personally I'd guess I spent perhaps 35% of the time on my core major (electronics). The rest of the time got taken up with subjects on things like mathematics, project management, professional practice / legal issues, sustainability, physics, etc etc.

So is a fully issued ATPL the equivalent of a degree....who's to say. Certainly the lecturers at my flying college with engineering (electrical and aeronautical) degrees thought so.

I never said it wasn't the equivalent of a degree - just that it certainly isn't the equivalent of an engineering degree. For instance I can't turn up to an airline and say "I'd like to apply for the left hand seat please, I'm only a 300 hour PPL, but I do have an engineering degree" - I'd get laughed out of the place.

Don't get me wrong im not trying to degrade your career but i certainly don't think you have a FULL understanding of what it takes to get an ATPL issued. There is noting ostensibly difficult about the ATPL's but just an awful lot of stuff to learn.....i ended up with 14 full foolscap folders full of stuff to know.

I don't have a perfect idea of what's involved in an ATPL - only what I've read briefly here, and conversations I've had whilst flying privately.

I just went to my bookshelf and counted 21 textbooks from my university days. Earlier today I saw an advertisement on this site saying "0-ATPL in one year".

Making it as a professional pilot is a fantastic achievement. However I think anyone who things the academic side is comparable to a science/legal/engineering program is kidding themselves.

[Mr Optimistic]

OK, a non-pilot and no flight sim either. I think you do have a prestigious job and furthermore you have the benefit of doing what I imagine you always dreamt of doing. There are an awful lot of worse jobs out there you know. Are you really so depressed about things and if so, with reason ? (PS one Albert Einstein ended up with a boring teaching job and wasn't rich either).

[hoody_mcboob]

I think having both an ATPL and a degree in Aeronautical engineering I feel somewhat compelled to reply.

Aviation will not return to the "old days" for the forseeable future, why would it, its a simple case of supply and demand. Thats not say however, that we shouldnt strive do do our jobs as professionally as possible and you will be rewarded at what the market deems is a fair rate. Should you happen upon some unique skill set, or have a lucky break maybe you will earn more. However, anyone who started this career with the sole idea of achieving some "status" or making obscene amounts of money must have been misinformed.

With regards to the relative complexities of ATPL vs Degree, they arent the same. To try and compare the 2 is pointless, neither are easy and both require a considerable amount of work. It is only fair to say that they both demonstrate a similar level of learning.

[kms901]

I have to agree with hooby. I am not an airline pilot, to some extent by choice, and I deplore the the current lack of status of professional pilots. (Certainly compared to TV presenters, X-factor contestants, Feng Shui consultants, etc). But you have to accept that a career choice that was considered "sexy" 25 years ago may not be any longer. I can give several examples.
It is not helped by members of the "profession" who spend an inordinate amount of time complaining about seniority and pension rights.

[angelorange]

VONKLUFFEN has been rightly praised for his United Airlines "Streetwise" / Airmanship posting. Sadly the conclusions (which appear to have been written by the poster) leave MUCH to be desired!

To suggest that manual flying skills ("stick and rudder") are somehow made irrelevant by this airline questionnaire is absurd. Sadly, basic flying skills have been forgotten in an environment of automation. Understanding how an aeropane handles and why the AP makes the changes to pitch , roll and power cannot be learned purely from scanning during autoflight. When properly briefed, disconnecting the AP to practice those rusty manual skills occasionally is intrinsically a good way to develop a pilot's airmanship.

Far more accidents/incidents have resulted from WRONG pilot inputs than the VONKLUFFEN post acknowledges. Here are a few more recent ones:

Colgan Q400: 50 RIP
Colgan Air Flight 3407 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colgan_Air_Flight_3407)

Incorrect stall recovery (Captain fought stick shaker) after icing led to spin on approach.

TFly 737: (thankfully no loss)
http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/B733,_Thomson_Airways,_Bournemouth_UK,_2007_(LOC)
Autothrottle disconnect un-noticed speed bleed back and applying full power against full aft trim resulted in stall and 44 deg nose up attitude.

American Airlines A300-600 lost its tailfin: 265 RIP
American Airlines Flight 587 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587)
After wake turbulence upset, poor use of rudder by FO resulted in fin separation and subsequent loss of directional stability.

A320 Hard landing: (a/c damaged, thankfully no casualties):
Uncorrected poor technique led trainee to land A320 hard (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/12/12/320070/uncorrected-poor-technique-led-trainee-to-land-a320.html)
""The aircraft demands a relatively high level of 'assured' skill from the trainee their ability to land the aircraft correctly, consistently, should not be in doubt before base training commences and certainly not in doubt during line training where passengers are carried," says the AAIB's inquiry."


It is precisely the attitude that in modern flying machines the computers can do all the work and a pilot is just there to monitor them that is causing worldwide concern over pilot training and experience. Ok so you are monitoring when things go ****up and the aeroplane hands you full manual control - what does the pilot do? We may never know what happened on the AF447 A330 last June, but we know the pilots faced conflicting airspeed indications. Attitude and power settings are in the QRH but what if there is no time to read it?

BEA Confirms Conflicting Airspeed Indications from Air France A330: AINonline (http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/bea-confirms-conflicting-airspeed-indications-from-air-france-a330/)

Practicing standard engine failures in the SIM to meet FAA/CAA basic standards using Airline SOPs is all well and good but does not prepare for the unexpected such as the Hudson A320 birdstrike.

More posts here on pprune:

USA looking at min 1500h ruling for Airline pilots:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/400601-who-flying-your-airplane.html

Airbus concerned over pilot handling skills:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/388573-pilot-handling-skills-under-threat-says-airbus.html

[FlyingOfficerKite]

Qualification as an 'airline pilot' by virtue of an ATPL is not a 'profession' in the accepted sense but a technical occupation.

The 'professions' require examination (first degree) and training to be eligible for membership. Common examples include solicitors (the Law Society), accountants (Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales) and surveyors (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors).

There is no professional body or training for airline pilots, other than a technical qualification gained by passing the relevant ATPL exams.

If you check the magistrates website and obtain a list of occupations you will see that the above 'professions' are listed whereas airline pilots and air traffic controllers are classed as technical occupations.

Whilst the training and ability or pilots is without doubt comparable with other so-called professions, pilots are not classed as such.

Without the representation of a professional body pilots lack the 'teeth' to fight as the other professions do to acquire the status now enjoyed by the main professional bodies.

Unfortunately some pilots see BALPA as their representative body, but with all due respect it is not the same thing.

Whilst I winge about the service I receive from my professional body (fees £500 plus per annum) it does provide the means by which I earn a living (status and prestige, as well as a requirement for most employment). I would have been lost without the facility provided by professional membership throughout my career.

This lack of representation and unity (not in a trade union sense) is a big drawback and can be argued to be at the root of the maladies suffered by the airline 'profession' at the moment.

So until pilots have a professional body to represent them (Institute of Chartered Pilots seems a good title!!!) and the industry remains fragmented it will be difficult to achieve the level of respect from those in management who are professionals by qualifications - 'bean counters' will often be Chartered Accountants for example.

Maybe this is the way forward? Institutes can be formed and run without Chartered status. This approach would follow that of the other professions and might enable flight crew to gain professional status, but more importantly collective representation.

KR

FOK

[theaviator2005]

Alright.

I kinda just wanted to see how people in general are thinking and by that i am posting this in hope of a Reply.

I have been involved in Aviation for the past soon 10 years and worked as a Pilot around the Globe. I have been one of the both Fortunate but also Unfortunate and i know everyone have their own opinions and ideas about our industry, but i at this point are about to have had enough.

What i am talking about is how we as pilot now are set as a level where we might even be flipping burgers at Mc.D. Pilots are over and over being downgraded, stepped on and looked at in a sense that were pretty much nothing.

It is everywhere all around the world, YES some are fortunate and i have been there myself worked for a stable company who takes care of their people, but there is few and far between these, and many pilots often the new once are being used like slave labour... Is it our own fault somewhat yes, many say we should have looked ahead and expected the worst, that life is tough and too bad... Yes it is our own fault that we fall inlove with a profession which is rotten, a profession that most people spend over 50.000Pounds to educate themselves in. A profession where even the local CAA agencies tend to work against you then with you. A profession where you are bound to work for years to pay back your loans to the bank.
A profession where major airlines make you pay for training, make you pay to work and treat you like your nothing.

Through years i been listening to Pilots, friends colleagues talking about how aviation have become not just a nightmare but something that have made them regret ever stepping into. How they have to fight not just with their companies but the industry in general. Just looking at every situation that happens around the world, i.e like airport security problems. Governments scream up and want to make changes, which in turn makes the pilots life even harder, but of EVERYONE do they ever ask the pilots for advice, do they ever talk to the people who are actually incharge when the door is closed. They dont and they never do.

Airlines like Easy Jet who try to hire pilots who have gone through a school like Oxford and payed an outrages amount over 50.000 pounds for their license, wants to bring in new young lowtime guys and make them pay an extra 34.000 pounds to get a typerating that cost them less then 10.000pounds. Killing the industry, people can blame they young pilots but someone should stand up against companies like Easy jet, and other big or small companies who are taking advantage...
People will say, well supply and demand, sure but remember one day you will be the person who sits in the right or left seat after paying ur way inside and you will now get kicked out the same way u came in....

What i with all my blaber are trying to see is if there are people who here like me have been saying to themselves, ENOUGH!!!!
People who would be interested in setting up an organization that will look at all areas in aviation, who will stand up for the little guy when needed, who will speak up when ignored by authorities or companies.
An organization that will go against the flow and try to start to fix some of the major problems we have, both with the airlines, private companies and governments, across borders.. Who will speak up when changes are being made that will affect our work and living in a more negative way. Who will speak up when the CAA or other authorities are making changes or regulations that are completely waist of breath.

I know there are several organizations out there but truth be told which ever way you look at it none of them have done a very good job, hence the situation were in now.

Anyways was just wondering if others was thinking the same or thinking it could be an idea?

Take care

[Microburst2002]

I totally agree with you, mate

People will become increasingly aware of the deep we are in the sh*t when they see the first SELF SPONSORED COMMAND courses.

VONKLUFFEN's post is great, but I would like to make a comment.

It says several times than studiying and reviewing is necessary (even if many pilot's themselves don't "admit" it, as if it was a weakness)

So, How on Earth will a guy be a good pilot who studies and reviews if he has never studied before becoming a pilot?

The system should make sure that a wannabee has good studiying skills before letting him begin with the training. And the training itself should include basic maths and physics for those who don't know much about them.

Finally I would like to say that, in the 21st century, the whole licencing issue should be totally changed. I can make a syllabus for a 4 year university degree that would be as hard to finish as any other degree that would make airline pilots be the best they could. Why should those unable to pass it have the right to become a airline pilot instead of those who are able?

There will be a day we ALL say ENOUGH. But we need to dive even deeper in the sh*t.

You will see

[FRying]

This job is not easier than it used to be. It is way more difficult !!! The aray of skills required is a lot wider and deeper. Dure guys used to have to keep tracks from VOR to VOR and they had to follow glide paths manually. But trafic was so much lighter. Legal issues were not as critical as they are today. CRM wasn't even a concept. Aircraft systems were so much simpler and "down to earth" oriented. Things did not go that fast. Airspaces were simple. The amound of constraints did not compare to today's. Commercial aspects of the job had nothing to do with the necessity of today's requirements in terms of commercial presence (pax remember captains' announcements and general behavior, not marketing peoples' actions). Passengers, monthly flights were fewer.

Ground staff who think this job is easier simply show the depth of their ignorance. They simply have no clue as to how demanding this job is in 2010.

Let's be proud !

[INNflight]

Lets face it.....the ONLY real problem - that kicks all the mess off - are money-hungry FLIGHT SCHOOLS.

I have visited such an establishment ONCE on their open day, just because I was curious (trained modular myself), and you wouldn't believe all the shi* that's spouted over the group of 18-21 year olds!!! :mad:

Retired Airline Pilot at the desk with a huge Boeing 777 model on it, everybody is "oooh aaaah". First question from the audience ( I kid you not! ):

"so if i train with you i get to fly a jet after flight school? not one of those small propeller planes?"

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:


People PAY type ratings because flying a turboprop, let a lone a small multi engine G/A aircraft would make them feel ashamed :*

That was all put in their head by the flight schools - start there and get the FAA model back. 1000 hrs min for a jet!!! ...that would give you only dedicated folks who are willing to work their way up, not pay their way in!

[Microburst2002]

Innflight

The flight schools are very very close to the root of the problem, indeed.

[Clandestino]

I AM A TURBOPROP PILOT AND I AM PROUD!

Oh, I spent some time on the shiny jet. If anything it was easier to handle and much more comfortable than any of the t-props I've flown.

I don't care about glamour, I'll take obscurity anytime. Just give me decent salary, decent and stable roster, maintain your aeroplanes properly, recognize when I go above the line of duty and at least say "thank you" afterwards, support me when times get hairy and never, ever put me in the situation where I have to decide between losing my job for not breaking the law or risking the loss of my licence If I get caught.

[greenedgejet]

"Retired Airline Pilot at the desk with a huge Boeing 777 model on it, everybody is "oooh aaaah". First question from the audience ( I kid you not! ):

"so if i train with you i get to fly a jet after flight school? not one of those small propeller planes?""

Very true!

Alas it has to do with the X factor/consumer culture we now face in the "developed" world. It teaches image is more important than substance.

Look at the cinema. Almost gone are the the days of the good story line in films now it's more about how many millions are made on opening night and special effects.

Gone too are the heros with character, now it's about celebrity culture. The young are taught that the only way to have meaning is to be famous and make a lot of money preferably with the least amount of work. Hence fame and fortune are sold as the answer to their wants. And the bigger Flight Schools sell an image (like a mirage in todays economic climate).

[despegue]

The way forward is to make entry into the schools more difficult through assessments (will weed-out these "i only wanna fly the shiny jet thanks to daddies cash, I will only sdudy the question bank" type of youngsters), increase the proficiency level in flying (stick and rudder), go more in-depth into the basics of flying, eg. meteorology, Aerodynamics,... put an official degree at the end that combined with an unfrozen ATPL and type-rating is equivalent to a Masters degree (this will assure better job prospects in difficult times or after losing your medical) and... forbid airlines to do the "pay-to-fly" scam.
This is a regulatory issue and it is high time that we, as a community of aviators take action!
It is also our responsibility of experienced people to protect our younger collegues who are just starting out and who have the right attitude.
Up to now, I have never seen a more lame and divided, useless professional community then us, pilots! REFUSE to fly with pay-to-fly cadets! REFUSE ANY MORE CRAP from management that degrades our profession!
Please start to put pressure on your authorities and government, please (B)ALPA, IALPA, BeCA, SEPLA, FIA etc... Put your fingers out of your behinds and do your job!

[Superpilot]

I cannot remember where I read this but it was not marketing hype, The JAA ATPL Theory course is equivalent to a 2 year degree course and there are institutions which recognise this.

Also the argument about pilots don't fly anymore, they are only there to monitor, it's all automated yada yada yada...We are 21st century humans after all, automation is expected and exists in many other industries. I can think of hundreds of job titiles where one's job is simply to monitor; and react when needed. Those people however do not have responsibility for other peoples lives.

[Finals19]

INNflight said...

1000 hrs min for a jet!!! ...that would give you only dedicated folks who are willing to work their way up, not pay their way in!

YES, YES AND YES.

This approach is a common theme in many countries worldwide - USA and Canada being notable. Nothing can replace the valuable learning experiences that are (IMHO) fundamental to working your way up to high powered, high speed machinery. And I am not talking about how to program an FMS or such like - nope I am talking about the raw DECISION MAKING SKILLS that only come from starting small and working towards large, and all the experience that comes with it.

Over the pond you start instructing, then perhaps Air Taxi / MEP then regional etc etc. If there weren't so many guys willing to pay an SSTR immediately after flight school, supply would be better aligned with demand and the airlines would have to re-think their hiring strategies. In the same vein, if SSTR was out of favour due to a 1000hr min for jets, the flood of wannabes would be restricted to guys who were truly prepared to start from the bottom and work up. That would also make the schools re-think their (morally questionable) strategies for training.

[PaulW]

I quite like the approach airline such as Royal Brunei take; cadets after training are sent on secondment to a regional turboprop company to build up experience in an airline environment and then after a couple of years transfer back to the company and onto their "shiney" jets.
The uproar which is happening at the moment, if you remove the paying for ratings and line training argument, is that effectively guys are skipping levels of the career ladder to get straight onto a jet, which is understandable, we all at some point considered the nice idea of flying short/longhaul shiney jets, but because they are doing that companies are paying them entry level pay, because they are entry level pilots, eroding terms and conditions of what was an upper level rung of the career ladder.
Sticking it out in smaller less paid jobs with lower terms and conditions is perfectly acceptable for many, because there was a great working atmosphere with excellent fun flying, hands on flying, and after a couple of years, you knew there would be an opportunity to move on to a better paid job.
The first rungs of the ladder will always be there its just they have moved further away from the ground. Earn 20,000 flying a turboprop enjoying yourself knowing youll get a double of triple pay rise in a few years, or jump straight onto a jet earn 20,000 miss out on valuable experience and MISS OUT ON FLYING THE PLANE NOT OPERATING IT and then by taking the jet route remove the opportunity to earn more money. What these guys dont realise is that there is nothing wrong with flying light twins or turboprops in fact its when your actually learning to be a pilot, are a pilot and not an operator. Like to see some of these new low experience guys fly these shiny jets with a u/s autopilot for four sectors with four NPAs. Those who have previously taken the traditional route, if they were to encounter a day such as that wouldnt find it unsettling, because they can go back to their previous experience.
If an airline must preselect then preselect from regional companies and arrange to back fill the regional companies with eager to learn cadets. Surely Oxford with all its contacts could set up a scheme between themselves and several "stepping stone" training airlines and easyjet.

FLYING A TURBOPROP IS FUN, isnt that why we all wanted to be a pilots, to FLY?

[angelorange]

As my great grandfather used to say in his 90s, "The day you stop learning is the day you are getting old"

Agree with INNflight on the idea of a 1000h rule for JAR25 jets and PaulW's view on apprentice type scheme.

However, it is not enough to post on pprune. It is time to write to the rule makers and with the advent of EASA replacing JAR we can have a say in that. Vice President Tajani is responsible for EU Transport and is aware of EU pilot training.

Write your concerns to:

Diego Canga Fano
Deputy Head of Cabinet to VP Tajani
European Commission
200, rue de la Loi
BERL 12/384
B-1049 Brussels (Belgium)
Tel. (+32) (0)2.29-21340
Fax (+32) (0)2.29-21.349

[Hogg]

I have defintely noticed that over the last few years it has become a downword trend with various pilots ive worked with comparing their aviation career in a "SIZE" related thing. The moneys certainly reduced with increased work and the jobmarket competition has in some cases come down to "stabbing" in the back or spreading rumours.
Ive got many years left if I want it. Im not sure if I do.

Its a great vocation not JUST a job.

Ciao

[kilafaki]

It is a good idea to increase the required experience level of airline pilots, but in Europe the 1500 hour rule is not realistic.
So my suggestion to EASA is to make a 1000 hour rule, of which 500 hours can be on gliders or touring motor gliders for pilots working in commercial personnel transport.
This will provide the industry with more experienced pilots with good handling skills and will also put a stop to the Oxford/CTC scams.

[lpokijuhyt]

The more people that bombard EASA with setting a min. concerning pilot hours for hiring, the quicker they may get off their ass and look into this subject. The sad fact is that nobody will make a rule until there is a crash here similar to the one in Buffalo, NY. But...if there is a chance then we should start writing! New min. hour requirement for new hires = better terms and conditions for all of us! This is the only way to stop the CtC and Oxford madness.

Here is a Easa email I found. Probably nobody reads it, but worth a shot.

Related to rulemaking: http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/g/img/rule.gif ([email protected])
Please also refer to our http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/img/arrowl.jpg Rulemaking Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/r/r_faq_main.php) page.

[TCL68]

Good letter and it scans well.
I'd also include something about the incredibly poor salary for the cadet while on the pay to fly contract so not being able to sustain themselves properly and potential safety issues surrounding stressed, fatigued and disenchanted crew.
I think that it would be the safetly issues that may make them take notice. Take a look at the other thread about the Guardian newspaper article!

[lpokijuhyt]

Capt. Sunshine: You are a skilled person! Hell...you should become a lawyer!

[angelorange]

You can email your concerns c/o


Anna Wielki-Sergio
Assistant to Diego Canga Fano
Deputy Head of Cabinet to VP Tajani
European Commission

here:

Anna dot Wielki-Sergio at ec dot europa dot eu


----------------

Here is my reply to first contact with them in March 2009:

"Please pass on my thanks to Mr Diego Canga Fano for his response to my enquiry and concerns.

It is hoped that EU wide harmonisation under EASA can be implemented with an improvement to Flight Safety. Particularly, the closing of current loopholes in the JAR system that has removed the requirement to obtain valuable flight experience from flight crew licensing criteria. This has also led to the demise of the flight instructor and general aviation route into commercial flying.

Whilst I accept that a 21 year old with excellent health, motor skills, mathematics and good interpersonal skills makes an ideal candidate for in house airline training (e.g: British Airways, KLM, Lufthansa have run sponsored schemes successfully), there is no substitute for experience. The recent incidents in New York (Airbus A320 in the Hudson River ) and at Schipol NL (Boeing 737 short finals Runway18R) highlight the need for experienced flight crew who know how to operate aircraft manually without computer dependance in order to avert catastrophe.

With defence cuts there are less ex Military pilots coming through to the airline world and many of today's younger pilots have not experienced flight outside of an automated environment apart from their initial fixed wing and Type specific Simulator training where systems can be failed in a safe learning environment.

These concerns have been researched in depth by Cranfield University see: Flight safety takes centre stage (http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/news/pressreleases/news/page2724.jsp)

Their Flight Operations Research Centre of Excellence (FORCE) has done useful research. But the Airline Training Industry seems to have been reluctant to take on the researchers advice due to familiarity with the old training methods and cost issues. The latter's customer airlines have been attracted to the lower cost of pilot acquisition - the trainee now pays not only for initial training but also airline training and even to fly "the line" with fare paying passengers!

Flying an aeroplane can be an enjoyable and challenging lifelong expertise. Sadly, as a result of cost cutting to appease the directors of Low Cost operators, the career is no longer attractive to new comers. This was described succinctly by Capt C. Sullenberger to US Congress:

'Sully' to Congress: Pay cuts deter experienced pilots | New Jersey Real-Time News - - NJ.com (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/02/captain_of_us_airways_flight_s.html)

One solution:

An apprenticeship from basic training, through instructional or General Aviation (Parachute dropping, Glider towing, Courier, Survey flying, Navigational Aid Flight Testing, Business Aviation) then on to larger aeroplanes with the Airlines provides the pilot with an interesting career and a well rounded set of skills that are indispensable to Flight Safety. Pay and conditions will also need to improve to retain experienced crews within the EU.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Yours Sincerely"

[togaroo]

College of Pilots

What would be the reaction if a College of Pilots was formed? Like the "Royal College of Surgeons" a professional body that controlled the number of graduates from approved schools, studying and flying an approved syllabus so that the quality and quantity of pilots were provided to the market in a controlled manner. For example the college sets the number of ATPLs to be issued in a year rather than the current market driven situation.
Provide on going standards and training throughout a pilots career.
Provide support and mentoring.

Discuss?

[Bergholt]

Cpt Sunshine

I do not wish to enter the debate about the rights and wrongs of 'pay-to-fly schemes' but it seems to me that your letter over-emphasises the safety factors associated with low-houred cadet pilots on such schemes.

Of course, safety must the prime consideration. However, low-houred cadets flying large passenger aircraft is nothing new. In 1987 British Airways introduced its sponsored trainee pilot scheme for cadets age over 18 and under 24 years. Other than a genuine interest in flying, there was no requirement that the trainee should have a minimum number of flying hours. The training undertaken by the British Airways cadets was much the same as that currently undertaken by those currently on 'pay-to-fly' schemes: CPL/IR and 'frozen ATPL' followed by a Type rating on a BAC 1-11 or Boeing 737.

British Midland Airways and Britannia Airways offered similar schemes.

Apart from the obvious fact that cadets these days are having to pay for their training, I would be surprised if there were any difference in the quality of the low-houred FOs today compared with those who were trained under the sponshorship schemes. Indeed many of the cadets who have been through the pay-to-fly schemes would have been accepted by the airlines offering sponsorship shemes 10-20 years ago.

[PaulW]

As much as I believe in the importance of a structured career path to keep the higher pay scales in existence. I can't support the argument that, a jet requires more skill and experience to fly than any other multicrew aircraft, the number if seats behind you is no argument for how difficult or challenging an aircraft is to fly. Multicrew experience is multicrew experience, jumping from a Seneca into turboprop is just as challenging as into a jet and vice versa. I would certainly own up to finding stepping back into single crew air taxi work very challenging and I would imagine lots of others would too. As far as flying jets or turboprops in a multicrew environment sops are sops, it doesn't take a special sky god like pilot to master flying a jet, 200 hour guys in an a320 is no different to 200 hour guys in a dash 8, both are a challenge with no experience, I do not believe you can use the safety card, when these legacy carriers have had structured schemes for decades. What needs to be done is finding a way of structuring a pilots career path and pay structure be it apprenticeships to gain experience or permanent positions, not short term contracts for people with little or no experience and no opportunity to gain any in any other way but these seasonal schemes which are tailored for maximum benefit to the company at the expense of low experienced pilots. A group of people that need regular consistent flying to build up a bank of experience, short term contracts are in my view detrimental to a low houred pilots ability level with long periods of little or no flying.

[Boing7117]

Agreed. Capt Sunshine, your letter is excellent and well developed, PaulW makes a very good point here in that it's not about aircraft you're flying, or how many passengers are on board (although granted, a 200 seat passenger Jet as used in your example might get the attention of those that read it) - it's about the level of experience in a multicrew environment that the pilot has amassed.

It's the introduction of pay-to-fly schemes by Easyjet and Ryanair and the likes, along with the lack of a contract of employment or reasonable pay for working prior to being line checked.

PaulW is also right in that there needs to be a structure for a pilot career in Europe. And perhaps the best way of getting this established is the creation of an institute of college of pilots that can oversee and introduce trained pilots into airlines, as you mention, similar to that of doctors or surgeons.

Of course, the big problem is that commercial aviation is just that - commercial and private. At least surgeons and doctors and the like tend to go into the NHS and so it's in the interest of the UK at least to control and manage the influx of individuals into these professions - whereas who could possibly manage the Institute for Chartered Pilots or the College of Airline Pilots? It's a great idea, and probably just what the industry needs -some regulation on pilot recruitment.

[TheBeak]

I disagree that there is a problem with low houred pilot flying in the RHS of an airliner. It has been happening for decades and generally very successfully - you don't need examples.

I do have a huge problem with UNSELECTED, useless morons paying to fly - they are the only people that do it.

Low houred pilots and PTF do go hand in hand yes but they don't have to - that is what needs to change. The financial side of things which allows people to be filtered by their ability to pay not their ability to fly, their knowledge and their personality is what is unsafe.

Low houred pilots flying airliners with experienced captains has always been safe and will always be safe. End of. Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly hasn't flown a plane. It's about having someone next you in your inexperienced days, nurturing you through the process. Whether you have 1000 hours or 250 hours makes less than no difference. End of.

[Avenger]

Interestingly this topic came up last week and the issue of the "right stuff" getting through selection and the "wrong stuff" bridging the capability gap with cash was discussed at length. Low hours pilots that used to come through rigorous selection then used to get their heads down and actually try to learn and improve. at Cathy a poor line training performance meant you were out.. full stop. Whilst I am NOT tarring all the SSTR and PTF guys with the same brush, as many many do put the effort in, there is still a minority that feel they have PAID FOR THE RIGHT to sit RHS and basically put in minimal effort, regard the exercise as a crumpet chatting joy ride and then moan on these very forums when given their marching orders. Apart from EASY and BMI I know of no "Partner Airlines" that will send guys packing as they are fearful of the bad press and the termination of the revenue stream. The industry is becoming corrupted by spineless management and greedy TRTOs. A colleague of mine has just gone part time, not because he can afford it, but because every flight is a "Training Flight" and he is totally knackered. Address the selection proceedure, the allowed mix within an airline and the curtailment criteria and we may start moving forward.

[TheBeak]

When they read that someone with just the hours to pass his/her license is flying them off on their holidays, they will be shocked.

Re-read my post, they have no reason to be. There is an experienced captain in the left hand seat. Flying exams are intense but not difficult. The thing that will shock the public is that the person flying their plane was selected on the basis of their ability/ stupidity to pay to fly the aircraft because the only value they can add to the organisation/ crew is a monetary one.

There is nothing wrong with low houred pilots flying airliners provided they have been selected for the right reasons. There never has been and there never will be. There is no point nor need to include this sentiment in any email/ letter to anyone, anywhere at anytime.

Having an extra 1000 hours on a seneca will do nothing for you when you get into a 737. There's about 59 tonnes, 105ft of length, a sh1t load of energy and a whole load of sophistication worth of difference. Get the chips of shoulders and accept it.

If you wish to discuss it in terms of a worthy food chain then that's a different story.

To add, I see you are only 14 sunshine, fair play and well done for having some standards.

[Cpt. Sunshine]

The more it gets said, the more it sinks in. A Seneca is not a 737. Your right, I'll accept that. My argument is against SSTR and Pay to Fly and the "200 hr, 200 seat" cadet is the product of that.

I am going to sit down and review the letter and edit certain points out as a result of comments on this thread.

Thank you all for your honesty and please don't use my age as an excuse to hold back, if it's not worth sending then say it. Believe me, I've got some strength of character and criticism is better than filling my head with undue praise.

Yours,
Cpt. Sunshine

[Bergholt]

I have no wish to get involved in the rights and wrongs of 'pay-to-fly- schemes. However, I can't help but feel that the safety concerns with regard to low-houred 'pay-to-fly cadets' is being exaggerated. Safety must be the number one priority of all airlines and I fail to understand why a low-houred 'pay-to-fly' cadet should not be safe. For many years airlines have employed low-houred cadets.

In 1987 British Airways introduced a sponsorship scheme for cadets age over 18 and under 24. A genuine interest in flying by applicants was considered more important than actual flying experience. The British Airways training involved CPL/IR and a 'frozen ATPL' followed by a Type Rating on a BAC 1-11 or Boeing 737. British Midland Airways and Britannia Airways also operated Bursary Sponsorship schemes for those age 18-26.

With the obvious difference of not having to pay for the sponsorship schemes, it seems to me that there is no difference between the trainig undertaken by sponsored cadets in the 1980s and 1009s and those who have embarked on the current 'pay-to-fly' schemes. Many of the cadets currently on 'pay-to-fly' schemes are surely of a standard that 10-20 years ago would have seen them accepted on a sponsored scheme.

There were well trained low-houred sponsored cadets in the 1980s and 1990s and there are well-trained 'pay-to-fly' cadets today. I fail to understand why the low-houred cadets of today are considered less safe.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Aviation works on a 12-15 year sine curve.

1974 was the bottom of the curve with the oil crisis: by 1986 guys leaving the RAF were holding 2 or 3 job offers and companies were crying out for pilots.

By 1993 the curve had gone down and was heading towards the bottom: it picked up again and 2005-6 should have been good years, at the top, but 9/11 threw the wobbly which put the curve out of kilter for about 2 years.

So the curve hits rock bottom in 2001 / 2: we could expect it to pick up by 2012 / 16.

When it does the pay to fly schemes will have died a death and companies will falling over themselves for pilots, because without pilots,there is no expansion, growth or profit.

Patience.

[fireflybob]

Train to be an Airline Pilot (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1966/1966%20-%200316.html?search=hamble%20AND%20boac%20AND%20bea)

[High-higher]

Shady, it's refreshing to see accurate and positive posts like that.

[UAV689]

I would love for the the 1000 hr rule to be in place and for people to gain some more hand on flying and decision making skills in light aircraft as you must do in the states, and I am currently training for my atpl's (i am not in a rush to jump into a scarebus without getting experience first)

I dont think it is that feasible to do here however, is there a big enough market for glider towing, instructing, air taxi etc to enable to get the experience? I personally dont think there is. Gliding is unfortunately a dying sport with dwindling numbers and clubs struggling to stay open (as a current glider pilot this is a known fact)

Although I have no experience of air taxi I imagine that it is dying out also with the advent of cheap low cost jet flights i imagine that will be an avenue closed soon as well.

That leaves instructing, and from what i can glean that seems to be a bit of a struggle as well now, for sure if every one of the 2-300 stary eyed OAA 'graduates' each year pursued FI route that would put far to many instructors on the market, surely there arenot that many PPL students and that amount of new instructors would destroy the already low t+c for exisiting career instructors!

[angelorange]

"Low houred pilots flying airliners with experienced captains has always been safe and will always be safe. End of. Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly hasn't flown a plane. It's about having someone next you in your inexperienced days, nurturing you through the process. Whether you have 1000 hours or 250 hours makes less than no difference. End of."

Beak - disagree entirely with that statement except for:

"It's about having someone next you in your inexperienced days, nurturing you through the process."

That's precisely what Flying Instructors and Training Captains are for but more often than not airlines are relying on line Captains to look after newbies after accelerated Line Training to save costs.

What happens when that experienced guy next to your low houred pilot keels over from food poisoning or heart attack? It does happen.

Speaking with one of the world's best aerobatic pilots (who has seen many friends loose their lives in his 20+ years of display flying) he said you don't really know an aeroplane until you've flown it for at least 1000 hours. And he was talking about a single engined fixed gear aerobatic machine.

1000h on a Seneca 1 in crap weather and no ability to climb above terrain if you end up Single Engine on approach develops more airmanship than sitting in the cruise in a 737 on autopilot.

Yes a 737 has energy and pitch power couples when flown manually, but if one goes off the end of a runway it is big news with more than 150 lives at stake cf a Seneca accident.

Unless the low houred FO is given the input by the training Captain and allowed to practice flying skills they are learning very little and their SA and instrument scan will suffer.


"Low houred pilots flying airliners with experienced captains has always been safe and will always be safe"

Define always safe. What about accident/incidents like these?

Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_1951)

Uncorrected poor technique led trainee to land A320 hard (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/12/12/320070/uncorrected-poor-technique-led-trainee-to-land-a320.html)

The other issue is going straight from a 200h flight school course to a shiny airliner means crew can loose handling skills and have not developed basic airmanship beyond what is needed to get by. That combined with poor pay and conditions and fatigue is a recipe of disaster.

Here are some cases of slightly higher hour FOs who went this route (ie: flight school straight into glass cockpit automated machines):


Air Accidents Investigation: 3/2009 G-THOF (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/3_2009_g_thof.cfm)

http://www.ntsb.gov/dockets/aviation/dca09ma027/431209.pdf

[angelorange]

Ah yes - those were the days when you had (according to the advert) to be a man to fly! And GCE's were harder than todays ATPLs!

[High-higher]

Sorry to deviate off-topic, but with regards to the "poor landing technique"....Was it divulged what exactly he was doing wrong, coming in at too low a pitch or what? That story amazes me.

[flyingfunder]

Having supported a graduate through all the processes of training:ppl, atpl, instrument rating, crewing. jet rating line training etc. It really cheeses me off when the likes of Ryan Air and now Easy jet can pay new pilots less than a bus driver to fly nearly 200 people. When the job comes back pilots should ensure that they raise their status to where it should be as professionals. Don't put yourselves down, I have a wide range of graduate professional qualifications and would regard the training a jet pilot goes through as more than equivalent. Start thinking we not just me.

[lpokijuhyt]

fireflybob: excellent post! I found it fascinating that the article was dated from 1966. Amazing that the salary of the First Officer and Captain was more in 1966 than it is today at many airlines. I don't no whether to laugh or cry (maybe I'll throw my fist through the computer monitor while laughing and then cry?)

[angelorange]

Todays "integrated" schemes are SOLD on the open market. They are no-where near as good as the old Kemble/Approved BA , Lufthansa flgiht schools. The latter were much closer to Military flight training with seriously challenging entry tests.

The point is folk expect to jump straight out of flight school (where they are not even taught spin recovery because the approved schools have removed their aerobatic a/c for cost reasons) into a Jet job.

The Military do not do this. Take the RAF - Entry tests then EFT, streaming according to ability then Multi Engine (turboprop B200) or DHFS(Turbo rotor!) or BFT (Turbo prop!). If FJT streamed it's Valley on Hawk, then Tactical (Hawk), then OCU (type rating and line training!) before SQN.

This is a real progression. It develops the best students to the highest level. The Hudson Ditching may well have been different if the FO was a 200h cadet as the cockpit workload would have increased hugely.

[D O Guerrero]

Flyingfunder - I must be in the wrong job then, if what you say about bus drivers is true. Or maybe you're just talking out of your arse.

[Night_fr8]

There is NO evidence that those SELECTED for a SSTR in Easy or Ryanair are any more of a risk to the travelling public than any other pilot recruited into the airlines from Legacy to LoCo.

A proper selection proceedure weeds out in the early stages those who are less committed and who may not fit into the airlines profile.
It is NOT the "I can pay take me" that people here think get onto these schemes, its the dedicated hard working boys and grils who are prepared to risk everything to get a foot on that ladder, that will achieve.
159 applicants for the Easy positions, surely not all had "Mummy and Daddys" money to pay for the course.
Its not up to us to decry their ability to pay, or run them down for doing so.
The arm chair hero's who post on here have a fair proportion of missinformation and there is a lot of the green eyed monster.

The main culprit for blame has been and still is the company accountant who is seeking any way possible to reduce airline costs.
What people MUST remember is that keeping a company solvent and employing staff, is far better than the company going bust and ruining the lives of their ex-employees.

As for BALPA, well !!! they are only interested in your money as members and their frequent junkets at pilots expense, when it really comes to the bottom line they hide in their offices do not take calls or answer e-mails.
Give yourselves a 1% pay rise leave BALPA, join the IPF if you must have a union represent you, its far cheaper and comes with 25K of legal cover.

Finally Salaries 1972 Turbo Prop F/O (Airline) £1200 per annum
1979 F/O Jet £8500 per annum.
2009 Capt Jet in excess £80000.
2009 F/O Jet in excess £50000

[angelorange]

Night_fr8

Actually there is evidence that folk ARE selected and even given extra training and still crashing aeroplanes.

There is snobbery in some schools - you have to wear the correct shoes, do not ask too many questions etc. Yes I can understand the face must fit if you are talking about Cockpit Interaction/CRM, working together and so on but some schools take this beyond a joke.

As for I can pay take me: what are bmi doing then? These guys have since modified their website but did the PTF thing: The Journey to the skies starts here, Become an Airline Pilot ? - Home (http://pilotcafe.weebly.com/index.html)

[Haran_Banjo]

Quote:
I have never worked for " Hapag Express" nor did I ever pay for line-training.
My first commercial flight ever was with a permanent contract in hand.

Would you tell us where you did your type rating and what was the deal ?? and what is your background after your type rating plus 100 hours? which company hired you with a permanent contract ? or shall I tell it for you You are a lier my friend

Antonio

　
I agree , indeed that's the kind of person you are despegue. I know you too. Your nationality is the same of those of that journalist or the one of this nice welfare minister :
DE SUPERMINISTER BRENGT LEVEN IN HET PARLEMENT ! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl2QHwb7Ns0)

You have destroyed the prestige of your profession and now you come here to cry out. Remain just a lier don't be pathetic, please.:hmm:

[Night_fr8]

Angelorange.
Proof, factual and appropriate.
Can You provide specific data.
Also is there needs to be proof that the self type rated pilots are more liable for an incident, which to my 35 years in aviation has NOT proved to be the case.

In fact I fully support SSTR's providing that there is a job at the end of training.

I have seen the "I can pay crowd" comefor interviews with the idea that if they can pay they are in, no preparation just a cheque book.
They go away very bitter.

Having also seen those who were well prepared and scraping together the cost of their course, pass selection, a very low percentage ultimately fail the course or require more a than a couple of extra sim details.

As I said before provide factual evidence to support your claim, and back it up by statistics of the same for those whom the airline paid for.
I think you will find your previous statement does not hold much weight.

[340dog]

Here is a novel IDEA!! that will benefit all professional pilots ( and those who want to be)

Boycott all Pay for Fly airlines for 6 months....first, those who want to pay and those desperate to fly big airplanes for nothing, will not be forking over thousands of dollars they most likely dont have ( big money saver ) and that will force these airlines to rethink their hiring practices to the point that they will have to actually hire and pay candidates to fullful pilot positions. If there are ABSOLUTELY NO PILOTS out there willing to accept current pay to fly schemes things WILL change.

Second...those who are flying the big airplanes will not be forced into recessionary contracts due to low wages ( if any ) at the pay to fly operators.

Its a win win situation for ALL Professional Pilots for now and the future but will take a collective effort by all in the industry....Low Cost Airlines does not necessarily mean Low Wages....look at Southwest Airlines...some of the highest paid 737 drivers around.

Our profession has been desimated by these schemes and respect is no where to found anymore.....Please Please RESPECT this once proud profession and maybe sanity will return and we will all be making money again!!!

[Haran_Banjo]

Have you ever study what was the difference between I.S.A. and real atmosphere ? That difference stand exactly between your great ideas and suggestions with our reality. In an ideal world your ideas would be successful and a wonderful solution. In our real world has no chance to happen ever.

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

angelorange, I can vouch for the fact that bmi is willing to chop self-sponsored cadets; I had a week of post-Christmas standby (and a full TV schedule) suddenly disappear because the cadet who was rostered for much of that week's flying was chopped!
I have reservations about the whole self-sponsored scheme, but the training department is keeping the standard high, and NOT letting revenue take priority over safety.

[SW1]

As far as I know, only 2 cadets have been chopped ever from BMI, some have run out of money or realised this PTF thing is not really worth it at the mo!!

[Callsign Kilo]

angelorange, I can vouch for the fact that bmi is willing to chop self-sponsored cadets; I had a week of post-Christmas standby (and a full TV schedule) suddenly disappear because the cadet who was rostered for much of that week's flying was chopped!

Are these guys generally crap? Loads of money but no ability, hence they pay for line experience. I seem to remember the FO who hammered an A320 into the runway somewhere in Greece was a PTF guy. He had a history of having 'difficulties with the aircraft in the last 50 feet' or something along those lines. Thomas Cook (the PTF provider at this time) continued to let him fly and hey presto, grounded a/c in Greece requiring maintenance to the gear!

What kind of selection criteria do PTF guys go through besides an Experian Credit Check?

[SW1]

At the end of the day Call sign Kilo, these guys have to pass a Type rating and base training provided by the operators TRE's, These examiners of vast experience and knowledge should have trained these guys to the standard required on the line.

If some fall through the net, and are not noticed till they write off an airbus, who do you blame? The **** cadet, with no confidence who is so far behind the aircraft, he may as well be in Row F staring at the world go by?

The operators for allowing this to happen?

The "TRTOs" run by Training captains of these very operators who profit massiveley off this

Or the guys making extra money for training these very cadets?

[Callsign Kilo]

SW1

I think we both know the answer to this? Commercial decisions take precedence within every operator these days. PTF is another revenue venture, as was/is the SSTR, as was the end of airline sponsored training. Shame to think it may indeed take a hull loss (or indeed more than one) for the regulators to stand up and put an end to it all.

[SW1]

I dont think it will ever come to the point where this is brought into the media and public eye regarding a crash.

The captains who command these aircraft are there to inhibit any such occurence!! By way of experience and the insight this brings into taking control before we get to ASRs, MORs or the other nasty forms that need to be filled out.

Granted, there are, and have been, days where the TC was caught off guard, i.e all was well until the last 50'- and the rest is documented by the AAIB.

To give some credit to any "****" cadets, who out there didnt have initial problems landing a 65 Tonne jet after 250 hours? Youre a liar if you didnt....

[clanger32]

I think one of the huge problems here that has not been addressed is that the initial training is so (SO!) expensive, that there HAS to be a return on the investment.

There is much criticism of people who "wish to jump straight into the RHS of a shiny jet", yet little understanding that generally people would LOVE to go instruct for the first 1000 hours. The problem is of course that when the average (f)ATPL costs what? £50k? a £12k salary as an FI just does not cut it.

THIS is why people need to get to the reaches of reasonable salaries as quickly as they can and this is in turn the driver to go direct to jet.

As Night FR8 has stated, I think also that (Beak in particular) people assume that PTF is nothing more than chequebook selection. I seriously doubt this is the case - in the recent easyJet selection of OAA cadets I know for an absolute fact that to even be considered, you had to have >85% and first time passes in all ATPL exams and first series passes in both CPL and IR. I know that if you were put forward to easy you had to go for interview and selection. Alright, >85% these days is nothing particularly special and first series passes doesn't mean that much either (except that you still have to achieve these and all of us that have done those tests would have to concede that's not necessarily easy!). You can also argue that perhaps the selection at easy wasn't as vigourous as it would/should have been had the candidate been selected by the company for a fully paid position, but either way, hardly "unselected".

That said, I do fully agree with Beak that selection should be purely through ability and your fit with the organisations M.O., not through whether you can pay or not.

However, IMHO - a defined "apprenticeship" type scheme where the route to RHS looks something like CPL/ME/IR --> FI 1000hrs --> FO turboprop --> LHS Turboprop --> RHS jet etc (not arguing whether that's right or wrong, btw) would benefit all....but the key is that training has to be priced such that the earnings you can make at your appropriate career ladder rung mean you can survive - this is the biggest single detractor from this.

[Wingswinger]

in the recent easyJet selection of OAA cadets I know for an absolute fact that to even be considered, you had to have >85% and first time passes in all ATPL exams and first series passes in both CPL and IR. I know that if you were put forward to easy you had to go for interview and selection

I'm an eJ TC. One of my colleagues was conducting the interviews. He said the calibre of the applicants is generally high and it was easy to spot those who were not likely to be up to it. I'm sorry to disappoint some of you but THERE IS more to it than simply having the funds.

[mrwebs]

quote: "The captains who command these aircraft are there to inhibit any such occurence!!"

yes indeed, the commanders responsibility for the safety of the aircraft, occupants and contents etc is seemingly all encompassing. however i think its a step in the wrong direction for him/her to have to deal with a 200-250hr f/o too.
i agree with the call for standard minimum experience requirement for a rhs position dependant on the class/type of aircraft.

someone said something about 1000hrs on a seneca not helping you on a 737 so it makes no difference between you and the low hour sstr/ptf's..
yeah, maybe not for the initial TR and LOFT stuff, but once released online and getting reasonably comfortable with the aircraft i dont think decision-making/awareness/crm/understanding of an aircraft in flight ect can be compared.
of course thats broadly speaking.

who is responsible?
its a bit of a "what came first, the chicken or the egg" type thing.
trto's or lcc's? rich parents or stingy management? cadets attitudes or pilots egos?
its all mind boggling really, you ask yourself how did it get so far? real question is how much further will it go?

i personally dont give a sh*te if you got 100% and a little star on on your report card, paying to fly rhs on commercial passenger jet as a "foot on the ladder" scheme is almost a revolting practice, its degrading to the people who will sit to your left.
i actually can afford it as my daddy is well off too but the respect of my peers and my self respect, especially in this job, is important.

i equally tire of some of the older crowd who have worked so very hard doing whatever in order to hold this prestigious job and feel vexed that some hotshots out of airschool are sitting in the same cockpit that for them is a culmination of a lifetimes work.

it may boil down to people, which we arguably all are. the ceo of an airline is as likely to forgo the interests of aviation, in favour of the interests of his bank account, as the ceo of an airschool is.
principal and honour has been dying a medium-to-fast death for a while now, humans as a race had little in the first place.

we are a young-ish industry, and we are inevitably falling into the same state as most others have. i.e you are the crux of the matter but also the neglected baby of the family.
i mean who listens to or cares about teachers these days regarding education? parents/governing board have all the say. like us they only make news when they f*ck up or strike.
and nurses?
police?
the clients of a bank?
government of the people?

what to do vs. what can you do.

sorry if this has been tedious but you know how it goes ;)

[FlyingOfficerKite]

CPL/ME/IR --> FI 1000hrs --> FO turboprop --> LHS Turboprop --> RHS jet etc Hmmm. Sounds a bit like the 'traditional' training implemented by BA and the Services.

My mother was a teacher before she retired and I always remember her saying throughout her career that fads may come and go but in the end everyone has to learn the '3Rs'.

I wonder what will be said in hindsight in 10 or 20 years' time when the effects of the current low-cost boom have been experienced? Will it be a new age or just a fad, with traditional training, in the end, proving the route of choice towards a successful, varied and rewarding career?

KR

FOK

[Airbusfreak]

good post clanger.. almost the exact way it actually is at the moment..

[ChocksAwayUK]

fireflybob: excellent post! I found it fascinating that the article was dated from 1966. Amazing that the salary of the First Officer and Captain was more in 1966 than it is today at many airlines. I don't no whether to laugh or cry (maybe I'll throw my fist through the computer monitor while laughing and then cry?)

You can put those pre-decimalised 1966 annual salaries into this (http://www.measuringworth.com/ukcompare/) calculator for some idea of what they're worth today.

Depending on which of the 5 ways you measure the worth I would say they're fairly similar to today's salaries, or certainly not as comparatively large as I expected.

(Recap on the 1966 salaries quoted in the Hamble advert: For BEA/BOAC, New FO: £1300/annum, 3-year FO £2300/annum, senior Captain over £5000/annum.)

[Goedemorgen]

I'm an eJ TC. One of my colleagues was conducting the interviews. He said the calibre of the applicants is generally high and it was easy to spot those who were not likely to be up to it. I'm sorry to disappoint some of you but THERE IS more to it than simply having the funds.

No there isn't.. because of 24 only 2 were not hired..

In the mail from OAA it actually said: ''remember, this ''airline oppertunity'' will for the most part depend on ones ability to have the nescesarry fund available. booya

Instead of telling how dificult the selection process is (which I'm sure it is)
you should stand up and unite :)

[clanger32]

Goedemorgen,
I see you've been taking the PPRuNe half-truth tablets again.
1/ I have it on excellent, excellent authority that your number is wrong. Less than 20 made it through.
2/ The mail categorically did NOT state that it depended for the most part on your ability to pay. It states -and this is a direct extract - "
may I repeat my regret that entry into this scheme does depend upon your ability to guarantee the necessary funding in the very short time available. I am only too well aware that this single condition may rule out an application by a number of graduates who, on merit, fully deserve consideration . You COULD choose to believe that this was the only criteria, but that would be disengenuous to the context of the statement, which was that to be considered for assessment, you had to have the funds available. IF you had the funds available, THEN you could be selected, put forward for interview and chosen by the airline. Sheesh. Talk about bending things to suit your own agenda!

That said, I do agree that unity and action are needed. But all seems to have gone strangely quiet. Anyone heard anything furhter than this?

[Centaurus]

It is very interesting to note that none of the responses involved the "stick and rudder" aspects of flying. From a safety perspective, this is right on target since it is hard to think of an accident in which the pilot couldn't fly the aircraft.

Well, he is dead wrong there. That must have been written before loss of control overtook CFIT as the major cause of accidents. It doesn't take much searching to find countless examples where the accident happened because the pilot was a lousy pilot at hand flying but probably a real ace on the automatics. One recent example of many. Flash Air 737 hitting the water at 400 knots plus when nothing wrong with the airplane and the pilots still trying to engage the automatic pilot as he hit the sea.

[tobes]

yes kms109 we can sign passport photographs