Congress tightens requirements for airline pilots

[GreatBelt]

Appears you now need 1500hours total to fly with passengers in the States....Wonder about the requirement to fly TO/FROM the States....

Congress tightens requirements for airline pilots - latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-pilot-training-20100731%2C0%2C2944664.story)


"Reacting to last year's Continental crash near Buffalo, N.Y., that killed 50 people, the legislation requires pilots to log more flight time before flying passengers and aims to reduce pilot fatigue.


Reporting from Washington — Responding to the deaths of 50 people in the crash last year of a Continental Airlines flight near Buffalo, N.Y., Congress passed legislation Friday requiring increased training and experience for regional airline pilots.


The House passed the measure, which also extends Federal Aviation Administration funding, on a voice vote just before midnight Thursday, and the Senate approved identical legislation Friday morning. No member of either chamber objected.


The legislation requires all airline pilots to log at least 1,500 hours of flight time before flying passengers, up from the current 250-hour minimum for newly hired copilots. The bill also boosts training, mandates the creation of a national database of pilot records and aims to reduce pilot fatigue by directing the FAA to update rules on pilot duty hours.


In addition, passengers who shop for airline tickets on the Internet must be notified which carrier will operate each segment of the itinerary.


The bill, which Rep. Jerry F. Costello (D-Ill.) lauded as the strongest airline safety legislation in decades, was drafted in response to the Continental Airlines flight operated by regional carrier Colgan Air that crashed in February 2009, killing all 49 people on board and one person on the ground. Regional airlines were involved in the last seven fatal U.S. airline accidents, and pilot performance was a factor in four cases, said Costello, who chairs the House aviation subcommittee.


Applause rang out in the gallery when the House passed the bill. Families of the victims of the Continental crash traveled to Washington more than 30 times over the last year to push for reform.Karen Eckert of Williamsville, N.Y., said the legislation would have pleased her sister, Beverly Eckert, a Sept. 11 widow who served on the 9/11 Family Steering Committee before her death in the crash. "We are delighted" with the legislation, Eckert said. "It actually encompasses almost every single item that we had asked for.…No other plane will crash because of inadequate training."


Regional and commuter airlines, which are most affected, voiced concerns that the government was getting too involved in training issues. The Aug. 1 expiration of FAA funding provided a vehicle for the safety upgrades, a House committee aide said. Congress has extended FAA funding 15 times since 2007, when the last comprehensive aviation law was due to expire.


Members of Congress aim to have a comprehensive airline bill ready by Sept. 30, when the latest extension of FAA funding expires. Divisive provisions over unions at FedEx Corp. and long-distance flights from Reagan National Airport outside Washington have kept the broader bill tabled for months."

[autobrake3]

About time. Hopefully this will filter through to Europe and stop this mass hiring and exploitation of 200 hour pilots straight onto public transport jets. Whilst most that I have flown with are good considering their scant experience, the overall awareness and knowledge base is commensurately low. This is a clear dilution of safety exemplified by this accident.

[wayupthere]

Yet none of these low hour guys in Europe have been in a serious crash in recent years,
Food for thought

[rooaaiast]

IMHO, having flown commercial with many excellently trained low time co-pilots, that it is not the crude measure of hours that is important, but the quality of the training that has been done in those hours.
Several of the well known EU schools produce excellent, well motivated co-pilots, well qualified to handle modern jets.

[TeachMe]

Only SLF but....

Everyone must start somewhere and I accept that on some flight I will have less experienced pilots than on other. Also, while everything else being equal, more hours are better, nothing is ever equal.

I would rather have a well trained, well supervised 250 hour co-pilot up there than a poorly trained, poorly supervised 1500 hour co-pilot.

This law seems a reaction to some (probably bean counters) not investing enough in safety, and thus making thing worse for all. Sadly you can not legislate reasonableness or common sense

TME.

[PBY]

Was not the Colgane crash problem mostly the inexperience (for whatever reason) of the captain? So why this bill is aimed only at copilots? Are they an easier and more obvious target?

[F117A]

I think this new regulation will only complicate matters. Why they decided that a first officer with low hrs is not capable I don´t know, because for one, the first officer involved in the crash had more then 1500hrs.

Ok so now we have this new regulation. What are the airlines going to get, flight instructors with 1500, corporate pilots with 1500.. would they have airline experience ? Also consider, now that your box to choose from is lower, so now a 1000hr pilot who is clearly much brighter then the other is not offered the job.

I am a 300hr corporate pilot flying an SR22 in Europe, because I got stuck in this era, but through determination I have landed a flying job. The good thing is that I am in Europe so this regulation (till now thankfully) does not apply to me, but if it were, you are telling me, I am stuck flying the SR22 for a couple of years or maybe upgrade to something bigger before I can even think about moving on to the airlines. Were probably my experience in having to do all the flight planning, decision making more often becuase its a single and my cruising altitude is not 40,000ft were I can sit down, have a coffee and relax, does not count for anything until I get the magic 1500 NUMBER !!! Ohh yeah 1500 because I am now able to get an ATP !! I don´t know how it is in the FAA system, but in a JAA system 1500 is still not enough to get an ATP, because you need to have certain amount of multi pilot, night time, etc etc..

So I think eventually this will backfire ..

[PAXboy]

SLF speaking
F117ASo I think eventually this will backfire .. If it does - you may be certain that the folks who made the legislation will not be asked why and how. Also, they will be long retired as these things have a long development time.

From the quoted report:Karen Eckert of Williamsville, N.Y. said. ".… No other plane will crash because of inadequate training."Oh dear. If only!! I understand their anger and desire to see change but the changes in the commercial world (NOT just aviation) in the past 25 years mean that this legislation does not tackle the most obvious problems, nor offer a suitable fix. In my personal view.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Good!!!
but it will never erase stupidity, carelessness, lack of knowledge, poor training, Brain-in-the-Butt etc just a very thin beginning:suspect:

I don't care if they are the most knowledgeable cadets possible,... I don't want to be in the back of a plane with someone who has never been in a small plane, IFR in the the mountains, at night, by themselves..as a job,...:rolleyes:

[protectthehornet]

sometimes I am just shocked at what I read here.

first off: teach me: what would you rather have a poorly trained, poorly supervised, poorly paid copilot with 1500 hours or a poorly trained, poorly supervised, poorly paid copilot with 250 hours? It isn't a matter of one type of supervision or training vs another.

F117...so, you are a corporate pilot in an SR22. You are learning LESS than a 300 hour CFI...see, you learn more about flying when you actually have to teach someone else how to fly. And gee whiz...all that fixed landing gear time is really important! And you even have a parachute.

Pressman makes a fine point...anyone can go from 250 hours to 1500 hours with just a few strokes of a pen (we call it "P51" Time...named for the Parker Pen Company model P51...not the famous mustang fighter)

PBY...some how I don't think you understand the progression in an airline from copilot to captain. It is usually based on seniority...and if you have to have 1500 hours to be a copilot, and then serve with the airline for some time till an opening for captain comes along, you would then have MORE THAN 1500 hours. Also, 1500 hours is the requirement to hold an ATP certificate which is a requirement to be a captain (actually the legal term is PILOT IN COMMAND).

CONTACTED...I have flown with pilots who have gone through excellent training programs and are not very good pilots. In fact, they have been terrible pilots.

Remember folks, we are not just churning out airplane drivers to fight a war where 25 missions was more than the expected lifetime (don't get me wrong, these were brave, brave men and we owe them our freedom). We are making airline pilots whose professional lives are years of shear boredom followed by minutes of stark terror.

This 1500 hour thing is a good first step. I understand there will be better rest requirements too.

[calypso]

[QUOTE]Yet none of these low hour guys in Europe have been in a serious crash in recent years,
Food for thought/QUOTE]

err... top of my head the 737 crash in Amsterdam only a few months ago.

[QUOTE]t is not the crude measure of hours that is important, but the quality of the training that has been done in those hours. /QUOTE]

So who checks the "quality" of the training? where are these superior training schools? Fact is a wannabe has a frozen ATPL (nobody cares from where or what the training was like) next question is can he raid the equity on his Mum and Dad´s house to pay for a type rating and pay to fly some hours. No? Next.....

Good thing about 1500 hours is by then experience may have overcome some deficiencies on the training and no one is going to pay to fly so.... the best get hired rather than the richest or those blind enough to take the biggest loan.

[protectthehornet]

it boils down to this.

if you train and get a certificate with 200 hours or whatever...you might have just had a good day and passed your tests.

but if you have really flown 1500 hours without killing yourself or someone else, you might just have enough time to be on your way to a safe flying career.

you can have stew out of a microwave in 2 minutes, or you can have GOOO STEW if you simmer for hours and hours and hours.

same with pilots...you choose who YOU would want to be with on a dark and stormy night.

[aguadalte]

I think this legislation, has at least four positive points:

It will force airline companies to re-think training and evaluation;
It will bring back the old progressive career;
It will prevent schools and companies to use airliners, carrying passengers, for their P2F schemes;
It will bring higher wages into the pilot's market.Hope it will influence the European Authorities...(although I have my doubts..)

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Yet none of these low hour guys in Europe have been in a serious crash in recent years,
Food for thought

Not strictly true, there was a heavy landing incident directly attributed to somebody who purchased a type rating and had low time.

Was it Thomas Cook?

[wayupthere]

[quote]Yet none of these low hour guys in Europe have been in a serious crash in recent years,
Food for thought/QUOTE]

err... top of my head the 737 crash in Amsterdam only a few months ago.

I knew some know-it-all was gonna say that..

the f/o training had over 4000hours
over twice that of the safety pilot

http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/Netherlands/DSB_ENG_Report.pdf
Appendix F

Maybe you should get a job in congress

[F117A]

Few would argue that experience makes you a better pilot. But the kind of experience you get matters too. For many of us the only way to build flight time is flight instructing, and there arn´t many of those jobs out there. Even should you manage to get a job like that, how valuable is the time? Flying circuits in a C150 teaching students how to land may provide an interesting insight into the human psyche, but it wont necessarily make you more qualified to fly in the right seat of a transport category airplane.

[protectthehornet]

F117

as someone who taught for quite awhile, I can tell you that monitoring landings while doing circuits teaches you quite a bit...much more than you might think...but only if you look for things to learn.

if you just sit there saying to yourself, gee I wish I was in a boeing...you might not learn too much.

I don't know about being a flight instructor in europe...never been there...never wanted to go. but I will tell you this...Lindbergh ( you might have heard of him) said that the time he instructed taught him more about flying than the flying he had done till then...you might want to read his book, "the Spirit of Stl Louis"...oh yeah, his plane didn't have a parachute and neither did he.

[p51guy]

I spent a lot of time instructing in a C150 but also got to fly twins and aerobatic airplanes. Each hour you fly gives you a new experience. Basic flight instruction can wear you out but instrument instruction and ME instruction sharpens your skills while teaching. It can not be learned as a student as well as an instructor. Simple things like entering holding with no HSI makes you think almost as much as the student. Not experiencing this will leave you as a weak pilot maybe being able to get through the checkride but not mastering the basics.

[maggotdriver]

Hallelujah!

Finally, someone has ralised we have to be saved from our on "ove'-vaulting ambition" to save themselves from us and the corporate entities that use us for their own advances. To all the low houred types out there, we all feel like we're pretty sharp when we start particularly if you excelled at school or in your training. The point is though, that most of us with more than 10 000 hours realise that there are plenty of times that experience borne by hard lessons have saved us NOT good training alone. Why don't we have 23 year old PhDs running the world or top businesses?
Congratulations to Congress, now let's hope some other countries follow suit!:ok:

[AnthonyGA]

Few would argue that experience makes you a better pilot. But the kind of experience you get matters too. Unfortunately, while it is easy to measure the number of hours of experience, it is extraordinarily difficult to measure the quality of those hours. In the absence of an effective method for the latter, Congress has settled for the former, which is still better than nothing, since total experience remains highly correlated with competence and accident statistics.

[mnttech]

Another knee jerk reaction from Washington DC. Time does not make a better pilot, experience does. A pilot could rack up 1500 hours flying from Denver CO to Casper WY twice a day, how does that make him a better pilot?

Now, if they really start to enforce crew rest with no commuting I think that will help.

There were 2088 responses to the NPRM, and while I did not open all of them, most that I read were against the 1500 hour requirement. Jetblue had a very long response against it, and it appears that Airbus and Boeing split the difference!
Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/)
Search on FAA-2010-0100

[protectthehornet]

just wondering...is the 1500 hours broken down like we break down the 1500 hours to become an atp...so many cross country, night etc? I can't read the document posted.

[glad rag]

Welcome to Amerika HA HA HA :ugh:

[mini]

The discussion here is primarily about the merits of different types of experience, i.e. quantitive vs qualitative, the former is easily measurable the latter not so.

Whilst it would be preferable that the latter be used as a yardstick of competence, unfortunately establishing valid measurements let alone legislating for them would seem to be all but impossible, hence the reversion to time based criteria in the assumption that having flown x+ amount of hours the pilot will have encountered sufficient experience of non-optimal flying as to qualify.

The other issue not addressed is that of attitude, reading the Colgan accident report it is striking how casual both pilots were about their situation, the Capt happy to regale tales, the FO happy to assume that he was in control of the situation – when they should have been mouths shut and all hands on deck.

This leads back to the selection process, currently, it would seem that if you’ve got the money and have reasonable hand eye co-ordination then some commercial company will train you.

In the old days (I know - groan…) pilots were selected as cadets following a rigorous interview process and then sent for training.

Couple this with the ongoing debate on the effect automation has on basic flying skills and you have a new thread…

[aguadalte]

A pilot could rack up 1500 hours flying from Denver CO to Casper WY twice a day, how does that make him a better pilot?
Agree...but if that pilot is not allowed to fly a jetliner before logging 1500fh, he will have to fly smaller range aircraft, which means higher number of take-offs and landings, more hands-on time, more experience for the same amount of flight hours...
Its not perfect, but its a start.

Regarding the Colgan Captain having not had enough rest...it was because he could not afford to pay a hotel room, neither change his home to a closer location to his job! He was underpaid, like most of the pilots in the US with more or less the same experience. (Because if he had refused that job, a line of "low-timers" would stand-up to do it for half of his underpayment!) And as long as you let (and so do we, in Europe) greed schools and airlines to earn [a lot of] money, by using P2F cadet schemes, we will never recover our professional dignity.
This is something my union will never allow in my company, (and I cannot say "in my country" because Ryanair and Easyjet have bases up here!) ... there are always opportunists waiting for the filet-mignon.

[gtseraf]

Aqadalte

"HEAR HEAR":D:D:D:D:D:D:D

That is the wisest thing I've heard for a while.

Before anyone starts commenting on how tough it is to get a start, we had to do it when we started, yes it was tough, but it made the journey worth it.

Pilots are starting to lose a sense of their value and are paying for it.

[Sqwak7700]

Only SLF but....
I would rather have a well trained, well supervised 250 hour co-pilot up there than a poorly trained, poorly supervised 1500 hour co-pilot.

This law seems a reaction to some (probably bean counters) not investing enough in safety, and thus making thing worse for all. Sadly you can not legislate reasonableness or common sense
TME.

Not accurate TME. Why are the only two options well trained or experienced? You shouldn't have to settle for either one. The pointy end should have two experienced and well trained professionals. While it might not be romantic, it all comes down to money because professionals are attracted to a career that pays well and can support their family.

While I got into aviation because I love flying, if I thought I couldn't earn a living doing it I would have gotten into something else that allowed me to earn enough to have flying as a hobby. Whith today's starting salaries, I'm not surprised that professional are disappearing from our ranks.

I think this legislation, has at least four positive points:

It will force airline companies to re-think training and evaluation;
It will bring back the old progressive career;
It will prevent schools and companies to use airliners, carrying passengers, for their P2F schemes;
It will bring higher wages into the pilot's market.

Hope it will influence the European Authorities...(although I have my doubts..)

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner! I agree with you 100% Aguadalte.

I think most people in this thread are missing the forest for the trees. This legislation is not about hours, it is about the effect that this hour restriction would have on the profession.

It is very hard for legislators to mandate minimum wages and working conditions in our capitalist society without being called a "communist" or "socialist". While it might not be perfect, this will make it harder for airline accountants to cheapen and erode our profession further, or at least until they figure out the built in loopholes.

[Plectron]

Having a considerable amount of time operating a very heavy jet with some extremely low time copilots I would like to offer the following.

1. Most are fine and a pleasure to work with BUT! you must be constantly ready to accept some very unexpected actions. Sometimes with little warning and close to the ground.

2. Book learning is quite good in general. No idea or interest in aviation in general for the most part. Couldn't tell a Tristar from a 727 or a DC-8 from a 707. And don't give a hoot. What's an ATR? Etc.

3. A few are really terrible. Frankly, the airline should pick this up during line checks - why it doesn't happen I have no idea. Bizarre behaviour, no FMC skills (course reversals and executing without checking with the other pilot), total inability to land in crosswinds. You name it. Complete lack of RT ability. You get the idea. LACK OF EXPERIENCE.

The real issue is what happens to these wonder boys (and most are really that - boys, not men) when they make the left seat after 7 to 10 years. Where/when do/did they actually learn to fly? A few hundred hours in a Cessna then 10 years twisting the heading bug and hitting LNAV? The check rides do not include loss of the TAC. For obvious reasons.

There are plenty of well qualified potential FOs out in the wide world who would love these jobs (and bravo to Cathay P for hiring them) but certain companies are choosing to hire based on "National Identity" and look for docility, servility, and lack of other personal motivation - choosing to live in their parent's flat at age 28 for years waiting for their training to be complete at an extremely low salary.

What I have seen that is the most astounding is the incredible sense of entitlement that is absent in those who have paid their dues the traditional and hard way. Military, flight instruction, working your way up through smaller airlines, etc.

OK - flame away guys. I know what is coming - how you have flown for years with 300 hour FOs in a complicated heavy jet and never had a problem - probably it is my lack of skills that makes it tough for me with some of these kids. Over 20,000 hours - accident/incident free and former management but what do I know?

Just hope you feel the same way when you and your family are in the back diverting into some Siberian East coast airport with an engine failure, icy runways, and heavy cross wind with a wunderkind in the left seat.

[poina]

Perhaps we should take a look into experienced captain competence before we draw a line in the sand for second in command time qualifications.

AA in Jamaica, Airblue/Islamabad, AirFrance, over Atlantic and in Canada, NWA in Minn. The list goes on and on. All mistakes in the execution of command.

It's not the amount of total time, it's the amount time the PIC's brain is working.

[flynerd]

The main Colgan problem was lack of crew rest time. Had both pilots had been able to take the recommended rest prior to commencement of work that fateful day, things would have been very different. Requiring 1500 hours as congress now stipulates is not going to cure the main problem. Seems short sighted to me. FN

[Plectron]

I agree with Piona. You are absolutely right. But explain to me how someone who never learned any handling skills suddenly becomes competent enough to handle a real inflight emergency or correct his/her incompetent 300 hour FO who is losing it in a 7 knot crosswind.

I say again, ALL unstable approaches are the PICs fault and responsibility whether or not he is the PF. (Gotta love all these new acronyms don'tcha). Don't expect your average deer in the headlights to figure out whatever foolish manoeuvre you as the Captain are trying and suddenly come in to rescue you with a George Reeve's resonant voice-over "I have control Captain".

[Fonz121]

I think we can all agree that this new legislation doesn't directly deal with the factors that led to the demise of the Colgan flight.

We can also all agree that there are good and bad pilots of all experience levels.

What I think is great about having a requirement for a min of 1500 hrs flight time is it brings back "natural selection" to the piloting industry.

People who actually make it to 1500 hrs will firstly have to be very determined individuals. Not just rich kids who think it looks like a fun career.

Apart from being determined, their first 1500 hrs are going to be a test run in their real piloting abilities. This is going to cull a few more guys, be it from having an incident or accident that scares them away (if it doesn't kill them), or by the individual quitting the industry due to constant job knockbacks possibly due to inadequate personal or technical skills.

Once a pilot finally does reach the magical 1500hr mark they are now ready to apply for the airlines. And if they are anything like me, at the 1500 hr mark the gloss of an aviation career has washed off just a little and they are less willing to accept sh*tty conditions just to fly for a living. Things apart from flying are starting to take priority again. Family, friends etc.

So while this ruling doesn't directly solve issues involving pay and conditions, I believe the benefits will trickle through as a result.

[dwade]

You make a lot of really good points. One thing about military training (even in wartime) is that the competition is harsh. Once you get into a training program for an airline, they really try to get you through and once you are a line pilot there is great incentive to keep you. In the military many pilot candidates are washed out during tough training and while there is a desire to keep active duty pilots, I'll bet they are more willing to ground you. That is not to say that civilian trained pilots can't be just as good or better in someways, just that maybe airlines should be tougher. The Captain on the Colgan flight had several disturbing problems come up during training and check rides. Maybe he shouldn't have been a Captain or even an airline pilot. The man continued to pull on the yoke through the stick shaker, then through the pusher and hard enough to override it. You don't have to be Chuck Yeager to be better than this. Isn't stall avoidance one of the basic pilot skills? His Co-Pilot had the right instincts (she knew enough and maybe was even skilled enough) but didn't have the confidence to assert herself. This might be where 1500 hours makes a difference. As a 1600 hour, ATP rated pilot, I know the last 1000 hours has taught me a lot about when to speak up. Of course maybe I feel that way because I may finally have an advantage that overcomes my lack of a 4 year degree.

[stator vane]

our fine law makers totally miss the whole point!!!!

you can take a new penny cadet or an old war horse pilot--add 'no sleep' and they can and often do--all fly like idiots!!!!!

[Piltdown Man]

This is a totally pointless and spineless gesture that totally misses the fundamental reason for the aircraft stoofing in. The pilots were fatigued because they hadn't slept properly. And that was because they couldn't afford to live close by because they weren't paid properly. To mitigate for low wages, the airline allowed their employees to commute long distances to work before duty - and start work before they had a proper rest.

The solution is to pay your employees properly and demand that "commuters" complete their journeys in time to allow for proper rest before duty. If paid properly, they'll be able to afford to stay in hotel and not a crash pad. Unless the pay issue is addressed, Colgan 3407 will be repeated but only with F/O's who have a minimum of 1,500 hours in their logbooks.

And while we're here, let's make this one clear. 1,500 hours in your logbook doesn't mean that you can fly. I have the miss-fortune of flying with a complete and utter plonker who has 4-5,000 hours. Flying with him is like flying single pilot, but with interference. But I have also flown with many 250 hours F/O's who are superb. So what really matters is quality. It is the quality of the hours, the quality of the training and the standards of checking that make the difference. And of course, being awake when committing aviation.

How do you make commuter flying safer? Pay the pilots properly, raise the standards and insist on proper rest using using FTL guidelines to determine minimum rest times and positioning before duty - even when positioning (whatever mode of transport) off duty.

PM

[DHC6to8]

What kind of crap are you guys pushing?? I have flown with 200 hr typed F/O's who knew what they were doing. They were selected, screened and trained... and to top it off... they were paid well. I have also flown with 1500 hour pilots who had to struggle up the ladder back in North America and it was a mixed bag of skill, and experience. I think that there is good in both systems... I needed 3000 hours to start in the right seat (many moons ago) of a medium turbo prop.... and in Europe these 200 hr jokers need 3000 hours to go Captain on the medium turbo prop.... it boils down to training, and also SOP's... the SOP's in Europe tend to be designed for somebody with 0 hours of experience to find their way, where as in North America, the operations rely on a certain level of experience.... I have always respected those who stuck to the path and climbed the ladder... but I must also say after being outside of North America for over 20 years that I have been plesantly surprised with the 200 hr F/O's too....
The future in Europe will be 200 hr F/O's flying modern jets/turbo props.... the attitude of the Lufhansa training system is to mold them young and create a system of almost identical personalities, attitudes, skills and experience. There is no room for individuals in this system.... the DLR screening in Hamburg makes sure of this. The North American system is not so streamlined and alows for more individual existence in the aviation system.... both systems have their unique advantages and drawbacks.... the one thing that really sticks in my mind after witnessing the same day an American F/O grease a landing in heavy turbulence and crosswind with relative ease and confidence... and the other was a 200hr wonder who knew the machine inside and out, could program the FMS and the FGC without pause one handed and hammered the bird down without any thought or correction for the turbulence and heavy crosswind..... unfortunately the lack of experience shines through....
Anyhow, each to their own I guess!
6to8

[Shell Management]

The risk of fatigue can be managed through an documented safety case, which can consider the socio issues such as pay and living conditions. The same approach can be used to determine the minimum level of acceptable competance.

[stator vane]

but won't be!

[Shell Management]

Thats exactly the point I have made here

http://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-emergency-response-planning/420797-when-will-airlines-start-preparing-safety-cases.html

Poor safety culture and pig-headed management.

[angelorange]

This is a good first step by Congress to recognise the depth of responsibility aircrew carry when things do not go according to plan. Our EU schools churn out lots of "approved" course students who often go on to become excellent Airline operators. They are cheap to run and quickly adapt to FMS programming. However, the JAR standards have changed and more focus is on Cost Index and automation and less teaching on manual flight skills. In addition many can go through an Airbus checklist but ask them about fundamentals like how weight affects what altitude they can fly or which way the nose of a 737 pitches when it stalls is often missing.

If students had to learn other flight skills (Instructing, Spinning, Aerobatics, Piston Twin Business flying, Turbo prop Freight work, etc) to reach 1500h before flying A319s/737s on autopilot alongside hopefully awake and wise Captains the airline world would be a safer place. The reason even bright low houred folk are not hitting the headlines for the wrong reasons has more to do with the safety of Two crew ops and modern automation (when it works) than being brilliant day in day out.

Further steps should include mandatory hand flying checks, Upset flight experience and in depth system knowledge rather than multiple guess CAA questionaires.

To quote JW411 from the TOM thread:

"I have been holding off commenting on this subject for some time, but I do think that it is high time that a serious discussion about what actual level of skill really remains on the modern flight deck when the sh*t hits the fan and the FCOM and the automatics don't work any more.

Those of you out there who come from my vintage will remember the old CAA Base Check and Instrument Rating. During the resulting two hours, the entire exercise was hand-flown and the only time that the examiner would allow you to use the auto-pilot was while you made your let-down brief.

I duly left the Royal Air Force after 18 years and joined this civilian way of doing things without too much difficulty.

And so things continued until JARs came along.

As an examiner (by then), I simply could not believe how much the candidate was allowed to resort to auto-flight.

It went like this:

EFATO: Hand fly until clean wing and then allowed auto pilot.

Subsequent Actions and Holding Pattern: Auto Pilot.

Attempted Relight: Auto Pilot.

Traffic Pattern: TCAS event etc to base leg. Auto Pilot.

Three-engine ILS: Arrange failure of automatics resulting in hand-flown ILS

To Go Around: Which invariably was "untidy"

Then: Invariably the call was "Engage the Auto Pilot"

For the next exercise, which was a Non Precision Approach (using the auto-pilot once again).

This could hopefully (inshallah) end up with a manual landing (or G/A) on 3-engines.

Apart from things like renewing the 3-engine ferry take off certificate, a bit of flapless etc etc, that was it.

So why am I worried?

I am very, very, worried that basic handling skills have been removed by the basic JAR renewal tests to the extent that our youngsters could very soon just find themselves doing something for the very first time with a very expensive piece of equipment crammed full of passengers."

[Plectron]

HI Angel. Worried? What, me worry? Guys that don't have even an iota of handling ability but they can sure fly the heck out that heading bug and LNAV. You would think that someone with even a small amount of self-respect would actually put some effort into learning to fly an airplane somehow. Some time in an aerobatic biplane? Yeah, right. Instead, they buy the Porsche, the Watch, and entertainment on layovers. Lufthansa, Cathay, and BA are not the problem here. Just to be clear.

[protectthehornet]

what a fine post! good job.

do you remember a small plane called the ''mooney''? it has/had an automatic wing leveler. in order to bank the plane you had to push a control yoke button/switch to disengage the wing leveler and make a turn.

a great FAA designated examiner told me this story. he was faced with a new perspective instrument rating pilot taking his test in a mooney and called up the FAA:
How can I give an instrument rating TO FLY ANY PLANE to a guy taking the test in a plane that does a good portion of the work? He should take the checkride in a plane without the wing leveler.

The FAA told him he HAD to give the guy an instrument rating ride in that plane and pass him if he passsed even while USING THE automatics.

My friend just shook his head...this was about 40 years ago or so. Such wisdom then...the course we are on now is an awful one.

[Plectron]

This conversation is so inane that I am just shaking my head. Fine pilots that can't actually fly. Really. I would love to see one of these "fine pilots" take an honest ATP from a non-"company" examiner in a 310 or a Twin Commanche. Because, even a B777, once the magic stops working, flies exactly the same. Physics. And if you can't do it in a light twin or even an F18 you can't do it in the B777 either. I wish someone from a responsible media publication would actually look into this and the fatigue issue.

Bottom line, you can sit there as long as you like and if you don't actually fly you don't get any better. Ask the training departments at AA, UA, and DL how the FB or IO guys do on their recurrents. For the uninformed, the FB or Food-Boys don't fly the legs - they are basically Cruise Captains and some of them bid them all the time for schedule improvement. And these guys actually had to have real chops to get hired, Not 250 hour book boys. Yeah, those pros with SOPs, CRM, and attitude.

[dogmaster]

the captain in question was an idiot.
It doesn't matter if you have 200h or 20'000 hours, when you are bad, you are bad.
this guy pulled the yoke during a stall.he failed many FAA check ride.
now everyone has to come with 1500h, only because this US idiot didn't know how to fly a Cessna.:ugh:

[poina]

I venture to say there are idiots on both sides of the Atlantic. Biggest one I ever flew with was from your side.

[JW411]

I can assure you (with the benefit of a long flying career which took in most parts of our wonderful planet) that no single country has yet managed to corner the market in idiots.

[Bruce Wayne]

indeed contacted,

as many other posters have pointed out, the legislation in respect of the Colgan Air accident misses the root cause of the incident by a country mile.

from the NTSB report:

the captain had accumulated 3,379 hours of total flying time, including 3,051 hours in turbine airplanes

that the first officer had accumulated 2,244 hours of total flying time, including 774 hours in turbine airplanes and on the Q400.

The report also makes mention of the fact that both the Captain and First Officer had commuted significant distances, from Tampa, Florida and Seattle, Washington, respectively, prior to commencement of crew duty at Newark, New Jersey and routinely either slept the night in the crew room, with friends or in places unknown.

The CVR recorded the first officer stating, about 2030:02, that she earned a gross salary of $15,800 during the previous year.

24. The pilots’ performance was likely impaired because of fatigue, but the extent of their impairment and the degree to which it contributed to the performance deficiencies that occurred during the flight cannot be conclusively determined.

25. All pilots, including those who commute to their home base of operations, have a personal responsibility to wisely manage their off-duty time and effectively use available rest periods so that they can arrive for work fit for duty; the accident pilots did not do so by using an
inappropriate facility during their last rest period before the accident flight.

26. Colgan Air did not proactively address the pilot fatigue hazards associated with operations at a predominantly commuter base.

27. Operators have a responsibility to identify risks associated with commuting, implement strategies to mitigate these risks, and ensure that their commuting pilots are fit for duty.

[DownIn3Green]

:ugh::ugh::ugh:Roo... re: your post # 4 above...so you think you can do it all with what little "quality" traing you have received...

Imagine this...You're the F/O on a 747 trans-atlantic crossing...for the sake of discussion, assume you are over the PNR (look it up if you don't know where that is), the Skipper is in his bunk for crew rest, and the cruise Cap't is in the loo...

For some reason # 3 winds down, a generator trips off the line, and some of your Auto-Techno CRT's go blank...Yeah, you're technically qualified to hold your position, "well trained" (according to your opinion), but I wouldn't want to be in the back of your A/C, regardless of how good you look in that really neat airline uniform...(with the shiney gold epaulets)...

PTH...see my post (towards the end) on the Cont Buffalo Crash thread...once again I agree with you...

[Spider Man]

Experience does not always equate to proficiency. True. But, a well trained 200 hour pilot when building time also learns through his/her experience. And, given the right environment, will be a better, competent and more confident professional when he reaches his/her 1500 hours. Experience has a value.
The Congress legislation is definitely a step forward.
They are not all 'stus' as some of the comments in the thread seems to suggest!

[doubleu-anker]

I do admire the FAA system in that it is very practical for the most part. They want air experience, which cannot be bought or gained sitting in a classroom.

Good for them!

In other parts of the world they seem to think that passing a lot of examinations, will off set this experience. Wrong! :=

[Plectron]

And if fatigue is really the discussion here - may I say "THEY DO NOT CARE!". If they did, certain 4 star airlines would not be operating 11 hour trips (that is 11 non-stop flight hours, not duty hours) with a Captain and 2 "highly qualified but not be be left alone in the cockpit" First Officers. In other words, in an 11 hour trip - which leaves near midnight - the Captain may only leave the cockpit to use the toilet. At his peril and yours if you happen to be sleeping in blissful ignorance in the back.

The regulatory agencies know about this. No interest on their part.

The media doesn't care.

The passenger like to think fancy costumes on the stews and clean toilets equate to safety.

Meanwhile the Skipper is making decisions like PONR, diversion airports if the destination is below the Cat I limits, and whatever else you do at the end of an 11 hour ETOPS flight.

I say again. They don't give a rat's ass and you can talk yourself blue in the face about it till the cows come home.

[doubleu-anker]

Plectron

Agree with you there 100%

The minimum rest periods are totally inadequate also. Just because it is legal does not mean it is safe.

[BEagle]

I would suggest that proper pilot selection, airline-sponsored training programmes and high quality pilot training are of infinitely greater importance than 1500 hours of accumulated ignorance.

This congress decision is just plain daft. What is actually needed is the following:

Pilot aptitude selection to become mandatory - the 'right stuff' on the flight deck, rather than just people who can pass a medical.
Airlines to pay to train their pilots - if that means a 5-year apprenticeship bond for new co-piglets, then so be it.
Fatigue rules to be comprehensively reviewed. VERY necessary!

[Bohica Baby]

Plectron,

Sorry about the thread creep....

I was about to call you out as a spooler non-aviation type or simply a moron, after reading a few of your random posts; but judgemnt got the better of me (this is not normally the case) and I read all your posts. So you have flown with crappy F/O's, and I mean unmotivated, couldn't find their arse.... Well you get the idea. Big deal, every airline/outfit has them (AA to _____ add your favorite). Should they be screened out during training/check events? No doubt. Are they? Sometimes. We all know who they are within the organization and we baby sit accordingly; whether that be a Captain or just about any other F/O willing to play the role of baby sitter.

Do all of us "qualified/superior" pilots wish we could hand-fly the "majic jets" like we could back in the steam gauge era. Of course! Do we all wish the company would just give us a training sim (no notes/records/fouls) where we could simply hand-fly the beast in various scenarious? Of course! Is that ever going to happen? No! That would cost money, and that does not add to the bottom line. A more skilled pilot is not quantitavely relevant, because if you do not want the job for "X" amount of dollars, someone else with less experience/skill will, and they just need to move the customer from point A to point B. In most cases the hull/other types of insurance, over the long haul, justify not spending the extra money on training. In some cases, you are worth more to the company balled up at the end of runway 9L than safely back in the blocks (negative press aside). Sad but true.

Back to the thread...

1500 hours is an arbitrary hour requirement (ATP), nothing more and nothing less. Is a 1000 hour F-15 pilot more or less skilled an aviator than a 1500 CFI? Is a 1000 hour CFI more skilled an aviator than a current 1500 RJ guy that has never instructed? It is definetly true and no argument you learn more teaching than doing, but is turns around a barrel realtive to "just leave all the buttons alone and make the damn position reports"? My only hope is that this law raises the wages for all persons in the pilot profession. We are a dyeing breed and maybe the rising tide needs to start at the sea floor. :confused:

Ok, your turn.....:ouch:

[lilflyboy262]

I can't believe how quick people are to slag these sort of changes off.
All the guys are pissing and moaning about the lack of pay, and that there are so many guys out there that are paying to fly to get into the right hand seat of a airliner.
Think about the pay to fly scheme for just half a second. There is no way that this would be able to operate anymore if this came into effect. The supply of these pilots will dry up effectively overnight, forcing there to be a lack of pilots to fill the posts. F/O's will now start to be able to be selective in who they work for, not just doing their bests to find work in their selected career.
Pay will have to increase in order to attract guys to come and work for them.
This will make the problems of pilots being unable to afford accomodation closer to work a thing of the past, helping reduce the fatigue (Not cure!!!!) problem.

All the airlines would have to do is raise the tickets by $10 a ticket, thats $1000 a flight more for the crew involved to offset any of the costs involved in hiring more skilled pilots.

Stop being so short sighted! And yes, I am under that 1500hr minimum so it does effect me. I'm working my ass off each day with a average of 7 take off and landings a day. I would hope that by the time I get to 1500hrs, I would bring far more experience and safety to the cockpit than a 200hr fresh commerical pilot.

[Bohica Baby]

Why are you all complaining about?

Guys and gals over 1500 hours working to move up the ladder congress just gave you the boost. You no longer have to compete with the guy/gal willing to do it at half the price.

Guys and gals under 1500, those people taking your position at xyz for twice the money you were willing to just opened up a spot at abc for the same pay you were originally willing to accept from xyz.

I dunno seems like a win-win, but I am pretty simple minded.

[doubleu-anker]

BEagle

The "right stuff"???

Tricky. I have seen guys ace some of these hoops and hurdles and still come out the other side with every personality defect known to man. They can get coaching to pass a lot of these tests these days.. A few I have seen I would not let near an aircraft, leave alone operate the thing.

I think a person could be better "looked at" when performing in a social environment. A few jars down the pub for eg.

[Denti]

That is why many airlines that do hard entry tests have some social part in there as well, for example a beer at the bar at the end of one testing day, a dinner, something along those lines.

By the way, why do you think Lufthansa, Cathay, and BA are not the problem here ? Lufty does not even need 200 hours to train its pilot anymore, its around 70 in a real airplane. Granted, some of that is flown in a CJ1 as training aircraft, but it is still quite a low number of hours.

[Airbus Girl]

The most interesting thing about this discussion is that everyone is busy discussing whether low hours FOs are good or an accident waiting to happen, however, I see another problem.

Experienced Training Captains, who no doubt all joined with more than 1500 hours, are the ones that are passing these low hour cadets. They are saying that they are happy for them to be flying a big jet, ticking them off for their base training and line training and every 6 months for their sim checks. They are saying they are as good as more experienced pilots when faced with emergencies, unusual situations and handling problems. Because they are passing them for their sim checks. They are saying their regular line operation is also as good as anyone's, because they are passing them for their line checks.

Line Captains are also not filing ASRs or reporting any issues with their FOs.

So I would say that if there are dangerous/ useless FOs on the line out there, there appears to be a problem with experienced, "old school" Training Captains and Line Captains rather than the FOs....

[protectthehornet]

airbus girl

you are naive...if check captains fail too many people on check rides they will soon lose their job as a check captain...you see, the company doesn't want to spend MORE money on training.

asr reports and the like...oh gosh...admit that you allowed your FO to screw up and endanger the flight...right. You stop the FO from screwing up.

When I was flying for a commuter some 23 years ago, I had an FO in a metroliner (no automatic anything)...

his leg into KSFO...beautiful clear day. I waited and waited for him to start down, cleared for a visual approach...he completely froze...didn't descend. I said: if you don't start down NOW, I will take the plane from you and land it myself...nothing...blank stare.

I took the plane and landed it.

I spoke to the chief pilot.

nothing happened to fix the problem and he is out there today somewhere...maybe even flying your next deadhead leg.

there is alot of CRAP out there....earlier on somewhere I mentioned the idea that the colgan crash might have had some sort of ''freezing'' up and then doing the wrong thing.

so much has been made of doing the wrong stall recovery (certainly correct) but little has been made of avoiding it in the first place.

problems abound...made worse by cutting costs.

[Golf_Seirra]

We have all flown with dodgy crew, be they on the left or right.....had to wipe your partners backside in various situations.

That said, I guess what the real issue is what makes a good competant safe pilot....I don't know......still trying to learn that.

What I do regret is never having flown piston twins...does that make me a worse pilot? Not sure, but from the guys I respect, does feel like a missed out on an opporrunity to learn a heck load.......

[NephewBob]

Actually, it is not just an hour requirement.

"Of particular significance is that the legislation cleared by Congress will require all Part 121 pilots to hold an Airline Transport Pilot certificate, which demands that a pilot be at least 23 years old, pass a test demonstrating knowledge of the aircraft category and class he or she will be operating and have accumulated a minimum of 1,500 flight hr. First officers currently must have only an instrument rating and commercial pilot certificate requiring just 250 hr."
-ATW

Not too many moons ago, (ok, 15-20 years ago) airlines pre-requisite for hiring was an ATP, even to sit sideways in a 72' especially in the US. The only way to get the average 3000 hrs to hire on the jets, was part 135 carriers, and that required 1300 hrs with a CPL (and other reqs) just to qualify for flying night freight in a twin Cessna (for example) Most non-miltary pilots have dropped parachutists, flown pipelines/powerlines, instructed, banner towed etc. etc., & when they did "upgrade" to 'air carriers' many flew single pilot, even turboprops, before getting on the bottom (seniority) of a big one.

Unlike today, a CPL in the right seat on International sectors simply did not exist.

[poina]

airbus girl,
Seems to me like you should drop the attitude and realize most of us paid our dues and flew as flight instructors, air taxi, single pilot IFR, commuter, and my personal favorite night freight.
Training cadets is no walk in the park, most of the time is spent on endless repetition of correct rotation, paperwork, fmc setup, flows, xwind landing, correct radio technique, etc. In other words NORMAL PROCEDURES. After 100 hours of this perhaps we could move on to abnormals/emergencies. We also had safety FO's until the capt released them, and that was in case I died not the trainee.

Now a cadet has been flying with one of these so called "old school" pilots for 250 hours being spoon fed every question, scenario, normal/ abnormal/emer. checklist, seems like a line check shouldn't be too tough.

Now we jump to the sim where the cadet has spent many, many recent hours and is young with a good memory, so things go OK, because after all we're not looking for brain surgeons.

These "old school" pilots held you by the hand and got you through training so maybe Thanks is more appropriate.

[protectthehornet]

thanks for clarifying that it is an ATP you need and not just 1500 hours. By the time I had all the night, instrument , XC etc for my atp, I had a total of about 1700 hours...

and back in my day, the FAA went through your logbook and made sure (as well as they could) that it wasn't P51 time.

I did bank checks, instructing and all sorts of crap...I'am sure you understand

regards

[DFC]

They are saying they are as good as more experienced pilots when faced with emergencies, unusual situations and handling problems. Because they are passing them for their sim checks.


Not at all.

A candidate will pass the test / check provided that they meet the required standard.

One candidate will easlily meet or exceed the required standard one candidate will work hard to meet the required standard.

Of course a pilot can have 10's of thousands of hours but be unable to function correctly in a multi-crew environment. Getting an ATP with 1500 hours in a cessna 152 does what exactly?

[Contacttower]

I have a question as a curious private pilot...in the US are there enough jobs to go round with operators other than commercial air transport for pilots who wish to progress to the airlines but don't have enough hours yet? Or is this likely to cause a shortage of airline pilots?

Certainly I think if this was ever introduced in Europe the problem would be that there simply aren't enough aviation jobs lower down the ladder so to speak for pilots to perform before gaining enough hours.

[Airbus Girl]

you are naive...if check captains fail too many people on check rides they will soon lose their job as a check captain...

It appears you are saying that check Captains should just pass sub-standard pilots purely to meet the quota? Or lose their job?

[Errol Sinclair]

Sadly there IS an element of pressure to pass crew when in times of shortage. The pressure is relatively subtle but it is there i'm sorry to say.

As for the 1500 hour rule - far too simplistic in my view. Its got to be about ability. I see some sh*t hot 200/400/600 hour guys (wish i could be that good!) and some not so good 3000 hour guys. Its quality not quantity - as I always remind the wife :)

[protectthehornet]

you got that right...at least in essence.

dfc...multi crew environment...C152 etc.

do you even know how to obtain an ATP?

[protectthehornet]

you make an interesting point.

if its hard to build time to 1500 hours (really get an ATP), then the pilots who are not truly dedicated will leave, hopefully the remaining pilots will be very good.

and that is another plus!

[md80fanatic]

"Getting an ATP with 1500 hours in a cessna 152 does what exactly?"

Do you know exactly how this makes an SLF feel to read replies like this?
May I ask a question? What does "wax on ..... wax off" have to do with karate?
Answer this, and you will also have answered your own question.

[protectthehornet]

DFC

I am intrigued by your quesiton regarding cessna 152/atp. first off, you have to demonstrate flying retractable gear plane and preferably a multi engine plane so the C152 wouldn't qualify.

also

if you actually did fly a C152 through all sorts of flying adventures, you have flown an underpowered, little piece of $%^& and came through it alive...with minimum instruments and no autopilot. You will have great respect for weather, mountains, and the sky.

if you did nothing but fly a sleek jet, with all sorts of ''gizmos'' you will always feel invulnerable.

better to respect the sky always, regardless of the type of plane you fly, then to think you are invulnerable ina sleek super jet.

[DFC]

protectthehornet,

You have missed the point - just like the people who think this new rule is going to change anything.

One does not have to fly a retractable to get an FAA ATP (Aeroplane) and "preferably" is not to be found in the requirements.

However, the regulations aside, you seem to assume that 1500 hours in a C152 would involve;


all sorts of flying adventures


but the sad fact is that in the USA, two pilots can fly together in a C152 and both log pilot in command time. They can do that all within 5 miles of the base airfield - never out of sight of home.

That really helps build up the hours!!!

So I hope you can see that using hours as a basis for anything is meaningless - unless you put some extra (above FAA requirements) things in place.

Finally, if a pilot can't resognise and recover from a stall with 250 hours, 15,000 hours of sitting in the right seat logging PIC time while the qualified pilot in the left seat flies and does the same is not going to change that.

[Lonewolf_50]

I am trying to understand where Congress came up with 1500 hours.

Why not 500?
Why not 750?
Why not 1000?

Why the sixfold increase. Has anyone explained this? Was a series of airline industry experts/consultants hired to arrive at a figure that would point to "X" benefit?

Do any of you know where that figure came from?

I like this bit, and wonder what the details of implementation will be.

The bill also boosts training, mandates the creation of a national database of pilot records and aims to reduce pilot fatigue by directing the FAA to update rules on pilot duty hours.

[p51guy]

Most pilots with 1500 hrs didn't stay within 5 miles of their home airport. 1500 hrs is not enough time to be very qualified for an airline job but is a lot better than 250 hrs. Training hours are different than PIC hours. Pilots need to get experience on their own to gain experience and confidence. Always having a pilot controlling what you are doing doesn't accomplish this.

The airlines that use cheap pilots out of flight school know they are compromising safety but prefer the cheap labor. It bites them a lot but they still do it. Captains can't be expected to become flight instructors because the airline doesn't want to pay for qualified FO's.

[tunawholesalers]

I think this is a good step for the industry for future pay and rest. However, in contradiction to that, i have to say that as a 3000+hr commercial pilot - i still rely on the techniques i was taught as a PPL.

IMHO, it doesnt matter how much experience you have as long as you are taught well!

It still amazes me to this day how many experienced captains dont know about the method -

AVIATE
NAVIGATE
COMMUNICATE

Absolute basics to me....and if you dont know it at 200hrs then youre not likely to know it at 1500hrs.

Quality not quantity!

Also, can i just say to the ex instructors who now work as airline pilots - if youre not a trainer then dont try and train...leave that for weekends when youre instructing!


Well Done USA.

[p51guy]

Yes we are all aware of Aviate, Navigate and Communicate but it doesn't solve all your problems. Experience lets you use good judgement to know once the problem you are having happens you can get yourself out of it safely. 250 hr pilots will have a big problem with that. They haven't been there before. Experience will be your best friend when things go bad.

[MarcK]

the sad fact is that in the USA, two pilots can fly together in a C152 and both log pilot in command time. They can do that all within 5 miles of the base airfield - never out of sight of home.

Not quite:

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, a person who is applying for an airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane category and class rating must have at least 1,500 hours of total time as a pilot that includes at least:

(1) 500 hours of cross-country flight time.

(2) 100 hours of night flight time.

(3) 75 hours of instrument flight time, in actual or simulated instrument conditions, subject to the following:

(i) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section, an applicant may not receive credit for more than a total of 25 hours of simulated instrument time in a flight simulator or flight training device.

(ii) A maximum of 50 hours of training in a flight simulator or flight training device may be credited toward the instrument flight time requirements of paragraph (a)(3) of this section if the training was accomplished in a course conducted by a training center certificated under part 142 of this chapter.

(iii) Training in a flight simulator or flight training device must be accomplished in a flight simulator or flight training device, representing an airplane.

(4) 250 hours of flight time in an airplane as a pilot in command, or as second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command, or any combination thereof, which includes at least—

(i) 100 hours of cross-country flight time; and

(ii) 25 hours of night flight time.
...

[protectthehornet]

forgive me, but don't you have to take the ATP test in a plane with a controllable prop and retractable gear? while you can take some of the test in a fixed gear/fixed prop plane, you have to demonstrate the above retract and controllable prop.

of course as a practical matter, a single engine ATP is as valuble as a condom with multiple leaks.

most would get it in a twin engine plane...and of course you could get a type rating and an atp in some larger plane like a small jet...more worthwhile.


AS far as logginf of PIC time...an instructor GIVING instruction is allowed to log the time as PIC...and he should. unless you have instructed you don't know how demanding it is.

[aterpster]

protectthelment:

forgive me, but don't you have to take the ATP test in a plane with a controllable prop and retractable gear? while you can take some of the test in a fixed gear/fixed prop plane, you have to demonstrate the above retract and controllable prop.

I'm not up on those regs. But, way back when I took my first ATP ride in an Aero Commander 500. Then, a few months later I took it again in a Cessna 182 because I wanted the "merit badge." (We had nothing better to do in those days of 25 cents per gallon av gas.)

All my later airline rating rides were observed by FAA inspectors who cut the paper work after the ride. On one rating the "friendly" looked at my surrendered certificate and proclaimed, "You have an ASEL under your ATP, that is not possible!"

My instructor and I convinced him to call Airmen's Records in OKC before he issued my temporary. :)

[protectthehornet]

aterpster

reminds me of the FAA inspector who saw a navajo with ''Q" tip props. he thought they were bent and grounded the plane.

oh yeah...oh yeah.

[DFC]

(3) 75 hours of instrument flight time, in actual or simulated instrument conditions, subject to the following:



MarcK,

Rather than go through all of the points I will just use the above example.

In the USA, two qualified pilots can fly together i9n VMC. One pilot flies under the hood simulating instrument conditions and the other sits in the right seat keeping a look out.

Unfortunately, both of these pilots under the US system can log pilot in command time.

So if two pilots get into a C152 and one puts the hood on for 75 hours then they both end up with 75 hours, they swap over and hey presto they both have 75 hours instrument and 150 hours in command.........all done without ever flying anywhere near a cloud!!!

--------

protectthehornet,

I am not talking about people who work as instructors at all. In most of those cases, they will have gained some very valuable skills. I am merely pointing out that a person (not an instructor) in the USA can present a 100% correct logbook with lots of big numbers but actually not only have very little experience but they may not have done anything for lots of those hours.

---------


The airlines that use cheap pilots out of flight school know they are compromising safety but prefer the cheap labor. It bites them a lot but they still do it. Captains can't be expected to become flight instructors because the airline doesn't want to pay for qualified FO's.


Well if it is under the FAA system then you may have a point. After all they probably only have 15 hours instrument training when they get the ATP and most of the hours of PIC flying they claim are also claimed by another pilot.

In Europe it is quite normal for a pilot with 250 hours to be accepted into training with an airline. However, you have to look at what they will have done in that 250 hours even if they do the minimum. I am quite comfortable that in the vast majority of cases provided they perform well on an approved type rating course then they will perform to the required standard on the line training.

At the end of line training, the pilot who came along with a CPL and IR multi engine will now have over 300 hours relevant experience and be signed off at every stage as meeting the requirements.

Therefore the first Captain to fly with them once released will have a fellow crew member that is capable of doing the job.

Most importantly however, is that in Europe, unless pilots gain a minimum of 500 hours multi crew experience they will never be able to attempt the practical test for the grant of an ATPL.

I can tell you for sure that I have flown with pilots straight out of training who were far better at their job than the crusty Captain relegated to the right hand seat due to age.

Finally, sit on the jump seat and watch two experienced Captains fly together and you will see what lots of experience can do.

The pilots in the Buffalo accident were not didstracted by their laptops and a robust debate they lacked training for the conditions they were operating in and 50,000 hours flying in 8/8 blue would never fix that.

Mr P Ilot flies 3000 hours in their C172. They get away with arriving VFR at 200ft below an overcast 300ft and 3K visibility. They fly an ILS to 150ft and they never have to divert / turn back. They reguluarly look out at the wings of their C172 in icing conditions and marvel at it's ability to carry ice.

Is that the pilot you want to fly with in commercial ops?

Give me 10 hours of good flying over 1000 hours of repeated dangerous flying anyday.

[peterporker]

so........how's that different from PICUS time where the first officer and captain both log PIC time??????

[poina]

Many moons ago when I got my first command on B-727, I spent much time calculating the descent profile as we all played the idle decent-landing config-spool up at 700 ft game.
As the years went by and complacency set in and airplane types changed, my previous precise calculations changed to " looks about right", and it was because I had the experience to recognize gross errors in the flight path.
I still used and mentally computed my TOD on full glass, tell me everything FMC based A/C.
Same at preflight briefing, by looking at TOW, I knew what optimum altitude was, I knew the MD-11, example, burned 8 kilo tons an hour so fuel burn for 6 hrs was 48 tons. Insert any airplane here. Now I have a good idea of landing weight, estimated Vapp. My destination is....yeah nice long runway, planning flap 35, minimum auto-brake....Let's start the briefing.

I'm not tooting my own horn here as this is what 10,000 captains are doing right now as they prepare to launch a shiny little tube at .84 through the sometimes unfriendly skies. I can't count on my fingers and toes how many times I had my ass chewed by the guy in the left seat when he expected something or asked me something I should have known. This is not only his right but his responsibility.

P51 is right when he says it is not the capt's job to train or teach. You are released on the line and as such should be as up to speed as the most senior FO. I found that most all capt's were willing to help and contribute if I asked HUMBLY. So, as the new guy/gal, exercise tact, learn from everyone, and show the guy in the left seat that your mind is well ahead of the pointy end.

[DFC]

so........how's that different from PICUS time where the first officer and captain both log PIC time??????


Because they don't both log PIC time.

Captain logs PIC time

FO in this case logs PICUS time which while recorded in the PIC column is not the same as PIC time.

Note also that for PICUS (in Europe) there must be an approved schemem in place at the operator and if the Captain has to step in fro any reason then it can't be logged as PICUS time.

-----------

P51 is right when he says it is not the capt's job to train or teach.


Of course that is the case and after all the line trainers and TRI's get more money for doing so.

However, the Captain should be able to cope with the co-pilot who while competent and capable is at the lower end of the experience scale. Given more experience (note I say eperience and not training) these co-pilots can be very good provided that they fly with the right Captains.

There is also a list of Captains in most organisations that benefit from an experienced Co-pilot (actually require is probably better than "benefit"!!) in order to operate safely. In some cases this is die to low experience and in other cases it is due to too much experience!! :)

Hours in the logbook do not equal usefull experience.

[NephewBob]

Of course not!

It is not the Captains job (his/hers is clearly defined by regulation) to teach (on a line flight) unless the (mostly younger) 'student' is willing to learn.

This is called transfer of experience, and happens in all walks of life.... Used to be called master & apprentice.

"There are no bad students, only bad teachers"
-Old Chinese saying

"If you do not learn something every day of your life, (especially in the aviation game) you are probably dead."
-Nephew Bob

[parabellum]

There is also a list of Captains in most organisations that benefit from an experienced Co-pilot (actually require is probably better than "benefit"!!) in order to operate safely.


Sorry, but no self respecting airline would have such a list. New captains with less than, say, 100 hours in command or a given number of sectors, may well be marked on the roster not to fly with new, inexperienced First Officers until the captain has passed the required number of hours in command or sectors in command.

If a captain repeatedly demonstrates that he cannot operate safely without an experienced First Officer then the employer is failing in it's responsibility if it doesn't require the captain to retire and is in danger of falling foul of both the regulatory authority and the insurance underwriters.

[p51guy]

Dispatch couldn't let us do catII approaches with less than 100 hrs in left seat. I was on the way to MSP and just completed 100 hrs half way through the flight but I still couldn't land catII because it had not been documented yet. It ended up cat I so got to land our 727 with no diversion. The next flight I could land cat II but MIA doesn't have that.

[protectthehornet]

parabellum

there might not be a list...but there are pilots (captains) who need better copilots to get them through the day...and these are respected airlines.

there are some crappy pilots out there and everyone knows it (who flys there) so...let's change the new rule from 1500 hours to:

only good pilots

[tunawholesalers]

Those that can,do, and those that cant, teach!!!

In my experience as a pilot, id say that applies alot!! The amount of times ive had captains try to teach me non SOP techniques is unbelievable....someone with 200hrs might use that info but someone with 1500hrs is far more likely to dump it. Experience definitely counts.....as does time on type. Ive rescued the odd captain who was new to type after having been signed off as safe. So, RHS experience is an important factor.

[AerocatS2A]

It is true that captains are not there to train in the sense of saying "ok First Officer Bloggs, today we'll have a look at an NDB approach and I'll give you some tips on maintaining a good scan and situational awareness." But to say that captains are not there to train AT ALL ignores the powerful influence that a more experienced person in a leadership position has over the people who work with them.

A captain trains, whether intentionally or not, by example. I spent my two years as an FO soaking up all the little things that different captains I flew with did, some of it was good and some of it was bad and I've done my best to pick up the best from each and along the way my own style of command has evolved (for better or worse.) My point is that the captain has an inevitable influence on the people they fly with, if they have any brains at all they'll want that influence to be positive and they'll set a good example.

I don't think anyone here would suggest that a new FO fresh out of line training was a well rounded pilot in terms of flying the line, the job is not yet complete and there is a lot of experience for them to gain, where and from who do they gain this experience? In the cockpit from the line captains they fly with. You bet your arse captains are trainers, the question is just whether or not you're a good one.

[protectthehornet]

sadly, the way we fly demands that the F/O be quite capable on day one.

we don't take along a ''supernumerary" to take over if the F/O isn't cutting it the first day. What happens to the brand new F/O if the check captain/training captain etc. becomes incapacitated on the very first flight.

a pilot shouldn't be seeing his or her first ICE on an airline flight. He shouldn't see his first approach to minimums on an airline flight. he shouldn't see his first diversion, or hand flown holding pattern on his first airline flight.

All that should come building up to his airline interview.

hey, I just read that it will take 3 years before this ATP business for copilots is in effect!!!!

[aguadalte]

All this talking about having flown with a co-pilot with 200h who was better than another with 1500h...
Some of you still seem not having a clue about what the legislator has to do, to impose a general rule...
"To be a better pilot (with only 200h) than another one with 1500h", is a matter of subjective opinion and one could only imagine the immense pressure of rule interpretations a legislation like that would had to cope with.
The legislator has to have in mind the big picture, against personal points of view. And I think we are all ready to accept that experience (normally translated into flight hours) is one of the most important key aspects of proficiency and safety (and that's the reason why we never miss the registration of our flights in our logbook).
So why not accept the fact that there are really no perfect rules, and that rules are made for the "general aviator", not for the "particular one"?
As I said before, I think that a rule that imposes a minimum number of flight hours for the average pilot to get a job in the airline transport is in fact a good thing, and it has the seed for the recuperation of the dignity of the function. (something that has been definitely eroding in World, especially in the States).
Don't loose it, use it.

[Huck]

What happens to the brand new F/O if the check captain/training captain etc. becomes incapacitated on the very first flight.


It's already happened:

NTSB Advisory
National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594
October 21, 2009

NTSB INVESTIGATING LANDING OF COMMERCIAL JETLINER ON TAXIWAY IN ATLANTA

The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the landing of a Delta B-767 on an active taxiway at Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport (ATL).

According to preliminary information received from several sources, on Monday, October 19, 2009, at 6:05 a.m. EDT, a Boeing B767-332ER (N185DN) operating as Delta Air Lines flight 60 from Rio de Janeiro to Atlanta landed on taxiway M at ATL after being cleared to land on runway 27R. No injuries to any of the 182 passengers or 11 crewmembers were reported.

A check airman was on the flight deck along with the captain and first officer. During cruise flight, the check airman became ill and was relocated to the cabin for the remainder of the flight. A medical emergency was declared and the company was notified by the crew. A determination was made to land at the scheduled destination of ATL.

The flight was cleared to land on runway 27R but instead landed on taxiway M, which is situated immediately to the north and parallel to runway 27R. The runway lights for 27R were illuminated; the localizer and approach lights for 27R were not turned on. Taxiway M was active but was clear of aircraft and ground vehicles at the time the aircraft landed. The wind was calm with 10 miles visibility. Night/dark conditions prevailed; twilight conditions began at about 7:20 a.m. EDT and the official sunrise was at 7:46 a.m. EDT.

A team of four from the NTSB, led by David Helson, is investigating the incident.

[aguadalte]

Come'on Huck, where does it say the FO was a low hour...

[Bruce Wayne]

A check airman was on the flight deck along with the captain and first officer. During cruise flight, the check airman became ill


so the check airman becoming ill incapacitated the captain too ?

[parabellum]

there might not be a list...but there are pilots (captains) who need better copilots to get them through the day...and these are respected airlines.

protectthehornet - from the above and your post #97 sounds as though you have flown for some pretty crappy outfits! Maybe I have been lucky as most of the crappy pilots used to get weeded out in training.

As an FO I certainly flew with some captains I didn't particularly like but I never 'saved' any of them, likewise, as captain, I never had to take control from an FO, even the very inexperienced ones, you just watch them like a Hawk!

I agree that in many cases 1500 hours minimum is an excellent idea and I hope it gets adopted in Europe too.

[p51guy]

PTH flew with a couple of very good airlines. I flew with a couple of very good airlines. Once in a while you fly with an FO that slid through the cracks so you don't have much help that sequence. It happens more on crappy airlines but also happens on major airlines on a regular basis. You make the best of it but you don't want to hurt his career.

Having a pilot with thousands of flying hours, military or civilian, and not being able to fly a Boeing airliner is troubling to me. Captains are not hired as instructor pilots but we assume the job when the FO isn't up to speed. 97% are up to speed but it is not our job to train the 3% that can't hack it. They shouldn't have been hired and released to the line by check airmen to start with. We have some weak captains too and they need a competent FO to assist them.

The ATP rule is a good start but going back to the 80's qualifications to be an airline pilot would be better. 4,000 plus with 1,000 turbine time like we did.

[413X3]

So now prospective pilots get to spend 10 years living at poverty level wages instead of 5 if they were lucky. Sounds like a great deal... for everyone who slipped by before.

[MarkerInbound]

forgive me, but don't you have to take the ATP test in a plane with a controllable prop and retractable gear? while you can take some of the test in a fixed gear/fixed prop plane, you have to demonstrate the above retract and controllable prop.

In the US you have to have 10 hours training in a complex airplane to get a COMM certificate. (There's a reason for CE182RGs.) And you have to have a COMM to get an ATP (military excluded.) The other 1490 hours can be in a CE152.

Back more than a few years ago my ATP written was about to expire. Did a SEL ATP checkride and was running around for a while with an ATP SEL COMM MEL DC3 till I could do a multi checkride with someone who could give the ATP MEL.

[p51guy]

413X3, that is how we had to do it. Commercial pilot crop dusting in 1966, instructing, charter, corporate and finally an airline job in 1979. 13 years, and felt lucky to get the job. It was fun if you liked flying and didn't mind being broke a lot. When we got to the airline job we didn't need much help from the captain because most of the time we were a captain. That is why I have trouble with PFT schools that set you up with a job with 250 hrs after the pilot's parents pay for it.

None of my training was paid for by my parents or my college expenses. Having a Buffalo crash happen because of this system of hiring unqualified pilots hired because of the low pay only because the commuters know they can get by with it has to stop. The ATP is a minimum standard, not 250 hrs of training. I don't care how automatic the airplane is.

[error_401]

Huh - took me 50 minutes to read through:

Just some information about the old world aviation industry which may shed some light upon why things are the way they are.

In my surroundings the middle of Europe a guy with his CPL/IR frozen ATPL will face a couple problems when the need would be for 1'500 hours on whatever larger plane he wants to fly.

There is no such thing as a GA industry in Europe. Flying is regarded mostly as pollution and noise emission. Costs of the cheapest aircraft which qualifies as SEP is prohibitive and starts at 130$ an hour but the equipment you will find within reasonable distance where you live is more of 170 - 200$/h.

There are no such jobs with reasonable hour building as MEP cargo, air taxi flying, banner towing etc. The remaining jobs such as para dropping towing are usually in the firm hands of local flying clubs and their pilots. It would invariably lead to PTF schemes to get the 1'500 hours. Get your calculators out.

I was lucky and able to fly my sectors to keep my CPL/IR on MEP on an Aztec E at 500$ an hour and with even more luck I got some friends to come along. I was able to commercially fly 30 plus hours on C340 and C402 taxi flights within two years. Means I had not to pay for the flight hours. And it was the only company doing this within a couple hundred kilometers with MEP aircraft for which a CPL/IR would qualify as PIC.

You ACTUALLY PAY for every landing in every airport I have ever been in Europe between 15 and 170$. Well the small ones normally in the range of 15 to 30$. You get a nice bill for any IFR flight from IFR departure field A to IFR field B and cruise of 15 minutes will most probably cost you 70$ plus bucks.

Our requirements are for commercial operation under IFR at night to fly 2men OPS. Most companies require 2men OPS even for a B200 which requires a CPL/IR plus MCC or a frozen ATPL due to insurance customer requests and other reasons.

There simply are no 1'500 hour pilots from GA. I somehow got lucky. Despite 9/11, SARS and 6 years of no hiring of the airlines I got close to 3'000 hours a couple hundreds SEP and MEP 1'200 on heavy turboprops and 1'500 plus on medium jet. Would I be here if I had to have 1'500 hours BEFORE this first turboprop RHS? No way! I would probably be back in business administration and web design making enough money to hold a PPL and dream about that cockpit job.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Error401 what you have described is so very sad:(

The UK health penalty:uhoh:

[protectthehornet]

error 401 and other europeans.

listen...you complain about how expensive GA flying is in europe. I do feel a bit sorry for you, but it is HARD WORK to get a cockpit job at a major airline. I know how hard I had to work and no one but my uncle helped me pay for it. my uncle sam (after serving in the US Army and earning my GI bill of rights education package).

It was a time when the military was downsizing after the vietnam war (RIF to our friends here). you couldn't get a pilot slot in the military so I had to become a drummer in the US Army band.

I paid for every hour I flew until I became a flight instructor. A good month of earnings then was about $600 dollars. It was alot of bullshit.

But it made me a dedicated pilot...instead of going on dates, I was reading or practicing holding patterns or something to make me a better pilot.

os if its tough on you...it will make you quit flying or make you a better pilot.

and anyway...our congress won't make it 1500 hours/atp for your side of the atlantic.

[johns7022]

Oh the horror....no more 200 hour pilots warming the seats of airliners.....

Seriously...in about 20 years, the new number will probably be 5000 hours....whatever it takes to get the chief pilots to hire from the top of the resume pile, not the bottom of it....

[PA-28-180]

PTH, and others....
"What happens to the brand new F/O if the check captain/training captain etc. becomes incapacitated on the very first flight."...


Just to add what the difference can be between a GOOD instructor and a not so good one....

My PPL instructor, after he was confident in my ability to do and handle the basics, would SIMULATE an incapacitation, or on approach would have his seat reclined back, suddenly block the flap handle, etc. I was indeed fortunate to have the same instructor for my IR. He would always be trying to simulate things that MIGHT (or were LIKLEY to) happen (ALWAYS in a safe manner, of course...not just what was in the PTS book. This taught me to always be thinking and anticipating what COULD happen...and be ready for it.

I recall reading a book about the American Air Force and Soviet Air Force and the difference in training philosophy. The American system was set up to weed out weak candidates at every phase of training. The Soviet system was set up to make EVERYONE in the program a pilot. IF they were sent to a base with a good instructor, they were the equal of pilots in the west. But...there was a wide variance among different pilots.

[error_401]

PA - UK health penalty ??? I don't get it sorry, that one is lost on me.

PTH - great achievement (really, no sarcasm) but that's not the way things work over here today. It would simply take you at least twice as long.

[protectthehornet]

error 401

then it would have taken me twice as long...listen, we have problems too...there was a system in which minority groups were hired with less time and experience in order to make good a sort of quota system...but don't get me started on that!

[error_401]

PTH

I won't :ok:

[Pugilistic Animus]

error_401

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/417410-math-question-need-formula.html

posts 34, 35, 36

if you want to brush up on 'the calculus' have a look at post 33, 36,40 48:)

:}:}:}

[error_401]

LOL i like it - thanks :ok::E

[Airspeedintervention]

I have to add my vote in support of this new rule. No, it is not perfect but definitely a step in the right direction and definitely a step toward regaining some respect. I realize that the ill-fated Colgan crew each had more than 1500 hrs but what's missed is that they were hired into revenue passenger flying WITH LESS THAN THIS. Thus they had NO FOUNDATION WHATSOEVER AT ALL.

Look upon the 1500 hour requirement as a test in and of itself because on so many levels it is. Yes I'm sure there are all kinds of ridiculous schemes and loopholes by which someone could rack this time up by doing less than positive flying activities but I guaruntee you that VERY few would have the patience to gain hours in that way. And the few that do would be easily recognizable during an intial logbook audit.

I have no idea if this rule would be appropriate for Euro-land. I honestly do not understand much of what you guys do over there anyway (or more precisely -Let be done to you). You have no general aviation over there and for the life of me I don't understand why - you have all kinds of other motorized recreational activities. Your currency is strong....what gives ?

[Junkflyer]

US airlines will be reluctant to sponsor anyone unless it adds to their profit. There are still many young pilots out there sacrificing and building time to reach their goals. It wasn't that long ago when 3,000+ hours was required (by the market, not regs) to get a regional turboprop job. It will be similar in the future and may help to raise the regional salaries.

[RAT 5]

Let's extend this discussion to captains. It was not so very long ago that 5000hrs total, 1500hrs on type, and perhaps even 2 years in the company, i.e. minimum 3 sim checks before consideration. Cadets who'd spent their entire careers in the company, and had well above average reports could be considered at 4000hrs. Compare that to now. 200hrs to enter an airline; 3000hrs total and all with one company. They know only one way of doing things, and it ain't always the best. The way OPs manuals are written these days what is being created is IMHO not a thinking captain but a robotic trained monkey. Now have a scenario where the cockpit total experience is less than that of captains of yester-year; throw in somehting that is not in the Ops manual or QRH and ask them to sort it out. Hang on to your hats. Everything is wonderful when it all goes rosey, but when it doesn't I think pax would prefer to have a few more years experience up front.
Digressing sightly, it does make me wonder about all these shiny charter biz-jets and what's up front there. The type of (value of) pax they fly around would, I'm sure' want to have the best quality hands to put their lives into. Any insights into how biz-jet training/experience matches upto the airlines? Failed airline applicants, I expect, will find their way in further down the food chain. If so, I imagine those VVIP charter pax might be perplexed; hence my question; what's the truth these days: and I did fly private biz-jets for 2 companies in 70's before airlines.

[protectthehornet]

the real fancy biz jets (not charter) are usually well flown by experienced pilots...the companies pay big money!

its all money boys and girls.

[galaxy flyer]

At my current operation, the last 5 hires had 3-5 years RJ Captain experience or the same number of years in corporate jets. I'm middle of the pack of the "older" guys--7 years corporate (Citation/Falcon 10); 4 years airline (Eastern); then 18 years of AF heavy jet, total 10,000 hours, all jet plus a bunch of small plane time. I was very happy to be selected, at that. Pay is competitive and the lifestyle very competitive.

The corporate market in the US is very competitive, all experienced guys, usually typed and experienced in the plane. My forecast is that it will remain so, due to the owners desire for, and willingness to pay, for the best.

GF

[doubleu-anker]

RAT 5

An interesting post.

This guy flies corporate, does 120 hours per year, home most nights, good pay, has 5 jets on his licence (2 heavies) 19,000 hours plus and has a reasonable lifestyle. I dont consider myself as a failed airline pilot. I maybe retired and a has been.

As for robotic monkeys, a percentage of airline pilots do have trouble converting to GA. We have to do some sort management on the ground, still. We have to supervise a lot, or things just dont get done. We need to be ready when the boss wants to fly. We can be exposed to commercial pressure in some companies and it does take a certain amount of experience and diplomacy to stand up to this, especially when they may "threaten" to get someone else in, that will do the job if you won't.

As for safety. Well what makes a 30,000 hour pilot fly an aircraft into a vertical cliff face?? We are all deemed safe until we prove otherwise. Being away from airlines I am not flying around "punch drunk" with fatigue and no longer facing the symptoms of burnout. Our bodies only have so many hours to give in a life time.

So compared with some airlines, corporate may not be as unsafe as some people think.

[protectthehornet]

really good corporate operations are just fine for safety and can be excellent in taking care of workers/pilots.

its those marginal sort of charter ops...still flying jets but on the shaky side that you have to watch out for.

I have a pal who quit a good legacy carrier, flew for some scumbags in the us...went to china and has watched at least one airline go tango uniform...would love to get on with a good corporate outfit stateside. 767/checkpilot, 737ng, DC9, 727 etc.

oh well

[BandAide]

The load is really on the captain. FO's have to build time and experience by seeing and doing. With 200 hours, no matter how smart, diligent or responsible you are, there is so much you haven't seen or done.

Traditionally, pilots got their experience before they got to the airlines. Now, economics, growth, corporate philosophy and other factors at play sometimes put FOs in the seat who do not yet belong there. Which takes us back to the original assertion. The load is always on the captain.

[AirRabbit]

I have to add my vote in support of this new rule. No, it is not perfect but definitely a step in the right direction and definitely a step toward regaining some respect. I realize that the ill-fated Colgan crew each had more than 1500 hrs but what's missed is that they were hired into revenue passenger flying WITH LESS THAN THIS. Thus they had NO FOUNDATION WHATSOEVER AT ALL.
You may actually feel the way you say you do … but, if you do, I’d suggest re-reading what you’ve typed here. You say you recognize that the Colgan crew each had more than 1500 hours, but you’re critical of them in that they didn’t have 1500 hours when they were first hired. Does that mean that you believe had they had 1500 hours when they were hired they would have been more “prepared” for airline flying? What do you think they were doing between the time they were hired and when they crashed? Do you think that the “experience” either pilot would have received in doing whatever they might have been able to get while they logged that magical number would have made them better pilots and therefore been less susceptible to making the errors they made the night of the crash? Perhaps it would have – but the better bet is that it wouldn’t have made an iota of difference.

I absolutely welcome this requirement. I've had it with the European way of putting 200-hr-wonders in the right seat of a big Jet. I truly wish that Europe would follow. And to all those "its the quality of hours that counts", there is nothing that can fill 200hrs that makes you qualified, period
I’m not sure what the military programs are where you’re from, but in the US the military trains persons with little or no aviation experience and puts some graduates in single seat fighters and other graduates into the right seats of transport category airplanes – much as would be seen flying the passenger operations in the civilian world. The total flight experience of these newly minted aviators is right around the 200 to 225 hour mark – give or take. They usually get a bit more training on the specific airplane to which they’ve been assigned – more so for those going to the single seat birds, and somewhat, but not a whole lot, more than an airline pilot would get in training for the airplane to be flown on the line, for those graduates going to the transport airplanes.

I think many would object to the characterization that the hours these military pilots receive is “experience” more than it would be considered “training hours.” Yes, it is true that these military trainees do get some “solo” time prior to graduating with their wings – but, it is usually a specified part of their training syllabus that they are completing.

It is true that some amount of experience can be used to replace some amount of training … and that some amount of training can be used to replace some amount of experience. But, the fact is that one can never completely replace the other. There is only one way to gain experience. One cannot be initially hired into any form of business and be expected to have years of experience in that business. Equally true, flying as a basic flight instructor (and while there are very good instructors out there – I’ve also seen some who are merely along to keep the student from killing them both while the student learns to fly) will allow you to log time – but what is the quality of the time logged? That is directly dependant on the attitude of the person doing the logging. Lest anyone here believe that I’m a died-in-the-wool” advocate of military experience – yes, I do have those kinds of leanings – but, I’ve also seen my share of 2500-hour C-141 pilots who have absolutely amazed me that they’ve managed to fool as many people as they have for as long as they have – because they weren’t anything like a pilot I would want to hire at my airline – and NO, I’m not shooting at C-141 pilots.

We are seeing advocacies for individualized training – where one airline has different “needs” than another airline – and those needs should be addressed on an airline-by-airline basis – generating a widening list of tasks or acceptable performance standards for similar tasks. We are seeing advocacies for pilot training being shifted from the traditional programs to “evidence based training.” Meaning that we should only have to train for those things that have been noted as potentially presenting problems that pilots would have to understand and be able to properly handle should those circumstances ever present themselves. Does that mean that we no longer should be training for ILS approaches or missed approaches? Does the evidence have to show a problem? Couldn’t the fact that there are no problems be considered evidence that the training being accomplished has prevented problems from occurring? Do different airlines flying … say B-757s … fly them so differently that the training programs and the tasks addressed in those programs for those different airlines should be so different that they cannot be held to the same standards? Should we have some airlines training on stall recognition and recovery and others exempted from that because they train on windshear exposures?

The truly significant issues should be that pilots are adequately trained to perform the tasks that they are expected to perform. That means their entire training – from “welcome-to-the-world-of-aviation” to the “congratulations-you’re-now-a-F/O-for-ABC-airlines” should be carefully constructed, with a goal for each segment, and an understanding of where the training end point is to be found. I don’t care if that takes 2000 hours or 200 hours – and, if truth were known, I’d probably be a bit suspect if it took someone 2000 hours to get to the point of being an adequate first officer.

[protectthehornet]

its funny, one of my best friends and a great pilot, USAF academy grad, F15 and F4 (when the F15 was still pretty new) told me the heirarchy of pilots at the USAF...and C141 pilots were the BOTTOM OF THE LIST.

Also, I do think the 1500 hours/atp prior to the airline hiring you is a good idea. How many stalls do you practice as a CFI getting those 1500 hours? Now, how many stalls do you practice if you get hired at 300 hours into the right seat of a so called airliner?

How many go arounds?

How many landings/circuits?

How much hand flying and steep turns?

you see, that there is a lot of room for ''real flying'' instead of straight and level on autopilot.

it does make a difference.

[AirRabbit]

air rabbit
________________________________________
its funny, one of my best friends and a great pilot, USAF academy grad, F15 and F4 (when the F15 was still pretty new) told me the heirarchy of pilots at the USAF...and C141 pilots were the BOTTOM OF THE LIST.
That’s probably true. When I graduated, over half of the class was Academy grads … We started with a total of 66 in the class about 35 of whom were "Zoomies" – one “washed back” to a later class (medical problem) and one washed out. The remaining 64 of us received our wings … with the top 40 positions separated by a whopping 7.25 points on the overall score – meaning that if you missed a question on an academic test or were off your airspeed during the final turn and received a “good” instead of an “excellent” for that portion of your 1.2 hour training session – you could lose up to 3 to 5 positions on the graduation list. It wasn’t a matter of gaining positions – the only way the positions were adjusted was due to the errors made. At that time, the top graduate (when the Air Force could afford it) was allowed to pick the airplane he wanted. From there the next in line got to choose. Of course I cannot remember the slots that were available to our class but as I recall, after first place, there were four F-4 front seat assignments; two A-37 assignments; a half-dozen or so F-4 back seat assignments, about a half-dozen Air Training Command assignments (“plow-backs” as they were known, going back to instruct in either the T-37 or the T-38); two C-130 assignments; and about 15 each KC-135, C-141, and B-52 assignments. That meant that if you held a score between 5 and 10 points below the top graduate you wound up in either the KC-135, the C-141, or the B-52. Does that qualify for the bottom of the list? If so … you are quite right. And the only way anyone could move up the list was to have someone above screw up to the point that he would lose a slot or ten. Also, as I recall, the guy who graduated about number 4 or 5 chose one of the C-141 slots - as he didn't want a tour in SEA, and was driven by flying "the Friendly Skies," and he saw the C-141 assignment as a way of logging more hours more quickly to be more "sellable" when his active duty commitment was over.


Also, I do think the 1500 hours/atp prior to the airline hiring you is a good idea. How many stalls do you practice as a CFI getting those 1500 hours? Now, how many stalls do you practice if you get hired at 300 hours into the right seat of a so called airliner?
How many go arounds?
How many landings/circuits?
How much hand flying and steep turns?
you see, that there is a lot of room for ''real flying'' instead of straight and level on autopilot.
it does make a difference.

The question you ask is a good one. As an instructor, how many stalls (insert here: landings/circuits/go arounds/steep turns/hand flying) do you practice? And how many stalls (insert the same here) do you practice while towing banners up and down Miami Beach or Atlantic City, or flying checks for Amerifirst between Houston and Atlanta? I’m not trying to shoot negative shots at those who have instructed or towed banners or flew checks … what I’m saying is that a diligent training program that provides an applicant with 200 to 300 hours of proper and well conducted training, using the technologically advanced flight simulation equipment we have available, while still providing enough actual airplane time and solo time to make sense, is, as far as I can tell, the absolute best way to know the quality of the pilot you are going to put into the right seat of that airliner. Will that provide an absolute guarantee that the pilot is top notch and absolutely will never make an error? Of course not. I guess we may have to agree to disagree if you believe that a pilot looking to gain time and chooses to do so as an instructor will have “a lot of room for ‘real flying’ instead of straight and level on autopilot” as the preferred way to ensure adequate pilot resources.

I wouldn’t be so adamant about this issue if I thought that there were going to be an adequate number of “qualified” pilots to take up the slack that I believe (and there are many who agree) is going to beset the airline industry – not only in the US, but around the world – in the next 3 to 5 years. Those on this forum who have snipped at the owners of airlines for offering lower wages – they’re right! Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s going to change. The government isn’t going to step in and assure a minimum wage for anyone – teachers, airline pilots, or doctors. Those folks will be able to earn whatever they are able to earn. That is – and likely will continue to be – an issue of capitalism – free market driven. If a society moves toward socialism and the government exercises control over those areas – there is likely to be an overall flattening of ALL salaries, rather than a significant differentiation between salaries of persons providing different kinds of services. If I’m wrong – and I truly hope I am – I’ll eat my words – gladly. But, I’m not anticipating the necessity of acquiring enough salt to make paper taste good any time soon.

[p51guy]

I was always told the B52 was for the left overs after the higher scorers got their fighters and a few wanted the multiengine heavy time for the airlines when they got out. I flew with a few B52 guys and see what people mean. They don't do as well as the fighter guys. C141 guys are a mix of good to average.

Learning to be a good airline pilot is not just CRM and learning procedures, it requires a solid background of basic flying and experiencing the real world without a captain talking you through it. PIC time is important to being a good FO. That is the foundation required to learn from that level of knowledge when he gets his airline job. Skipping the intermediate steps leaves a lot of knowledge missing when he gets into the first airline job.

[RAT 5]

The load is really on the captain. FO's have to build time and experience by seeing and doing. With 200 hours, no matter how smart, diligent or responsible you are, there is so much you haven't seen or done.

Exactly, and that is why I question the huge reduction in requirements for a command over the years. The argument that F/O's have to learn with time is also true for captains. I wonder if 3.5 years with 1 operator where nothing significant has gone wrong is enough for LHS in airlines, where the captains make 90% of the decisions? These days, with no dispatchers, no station managers, no handling agent freq, not comms to Ops etc. etc. and an Ops manual that reads like a play station instruction manual perhaps, just perhaps a little more experience might not be a bad idea. 27 years old captain, 3200hrs, with a 22 year old 500hr F/O might not have enough total data bank to solve a non-QRH issue. It is usually those type of problems that lead to incidents/crashes. The subtle malfunctions: mis-managed and then they spiral. I'm not saying older pilots don't mis-manage, but I'm arguing the degree of risk. One would hope that experience, and thus more training and exposure to the enviroment and guidance of senior mentors, would reduce the risk of mis-managing issues.
IMHO we are still the final insurance, and insurance is all about the level of risk.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Isn't interesting how so many are conditioned by their own experience, and how little objective (as opposed to subjective personal experience) study is readily available in the civil field, as to the factors that influence achieving a minimum but adequate level of competency.

Quite simply, competency is all that counts, we all know the difference ( I hope) between, say, 7000h experience and 1 hour, seven thousand times.

What many have probably forgotten, and many never knew, was a bunch of early Hamble BOAC cadets who checked out in command on B707, with less than 2000h total aeronautical experience, and previous actual command time was an absolute minimum, and all on light aircraft.

I operated extensively with three of those guys, one was outstanding as a pilot and a Captain, the other two a comfortably good standard ------ it's all about the effectiveness of training and indoctrination.

Tootle pip!!

[AirRabbit]

Learning to be a good airline pilot is not just CRM and learning procedures, it requires a solid background of basic flying and experiencing the real world without a captain talking you through it. PIC time is important to being a good FO. That is the foundation required to learn from that level of knowledge when he gets his airline job. Skipping the intermediate steps leaves a lot of knowledge missing when he gets into the first airline job.
I might repeat your first sentence here with a very minor adjustment: Learning to be a good airline pilot is not just CRM and learning procedures, it requires a solid background of basic flying and experiencing the real world without a captain talking you through it and advanced training. My point is that being a PILOT requires the training you've described - and ... what is the difference if someone has or has not been exposed to having someone "talk" you through a series of events. Does that not help that pilot's understanding - or is there a belief that one simply doesn't have the ability to "do it him(her)-self" without having done it alone on multiple occasions. Don't you think that the person who would be giving the "voice-over" would eventually determine that the other guy no longer needs that verbal coaching?

In a perfect world (where perfect is defined as having sufficient numbers of 27-year-old applicants with 4000 hours of heavy, multi-engine jet time with 2/3 of that time as aircraft commander / instructor time) I would be hard-pressed to argue with you. But, in that we do not live in that perfect world any longer, what kind of PIC time would be important to being a good F/O? I go back to the military graduate, with something between 200 and 250 hours of total time, flying the right seat of a C-17, across the Atlantic, at night, into the combat zones in the middle east, with "whatever" in the cargo bay, the guy in the left seat, usually with rank of Captain, having probably 2000-3000 hours ... how is that significantly different than what we've been describing for operations in the civilian world? Would the military put that right seater in that position if they thought he/she was incapable of doing the job required? Is there any less concern for correct understanding and operation of the airplane? ... any less demand for competency or professionalism? ... any less expectancy that, if necessary, that pilot would be capable (and expected) to perform like the professional that has been vested with the responsibility that goes along with assignment to that right seat?

I guess I'm just not quite ready to assign persons to certain "pigeon-holes" ... as I've seen just as many former fighter pilots who have a noticeable reluctance to depend on "the crew," or who have a tendency to fly the airplane "more aggressively" than the ops manual would direct, as I have seen C-141, B-52, or C/KC-135 guys with a reluctance to execute "command decisions" with regard to flying the airplane.

[johns7022]

Truly the only way to know how good someone is, is to test them...I am not opposed to putting a 20,000 hr captain next to a 200 hr ab initio pilot...given them a solid ATP written exam then put them in the sim, and start throwing scenarios at them...may the best man win..

For airlines and corporate that C141 driver will smoke the F16 pilot on instrument skills and scenarios....like I joked with one guy...if you want to go shoot down bandits, hire THAT guy, if you want someone who can look out on the wing, see some ice and know what to do...you hire THIS guy....

Personally I didn't really feel like I owned what I did as pilot until thousands of hours down the road, not just flying, but walk into a room full of experienced aviator and tell who was full of it or not....or be able to just hop into any aircraft....

As someone with some hours, I will also be the first to say, that some guys are hanging on experience that really stopped 20 years ago, not having done anything challenging since they learned how to fly..

It really depends....I think if you require an ATP of pilots, that's a good starting place...

[AirRabbit]

I am not at all opposed to “testing” applicants prior to being hired by an airline. But that would likely be limited to those who are applying for the “Pilot’s Wanted” sign in the window. It also presumes a relatively adequate number of potential pilots with the minimum training and experience that would likely be included on that sign in the window. My fear is that we are simply not going to have the availability of having sufficient persons with anywhere near the prerequisite training and experience we would all like to see. What then? Do we simply reduce the amount of flying? Do we increase the number of hours we each can fly (will fly?) per day/week/month/year? Sure, there will be some applicants from the military and some applicants from the civilian / corporate world … but, I cannot see how those sources are going to even make a dent in the number of new pilots that are going to be needed. If we place a minimum of 1500 hours of experience on those who will be interested in seeking airline jobs – I think we’re going to see very imaginative ways of being able to present one’s self with the requisite log-book entries … i.e., 1500 hours. What I think we ought to be focusing on is knowing how these potential applicants have been trained … the amount of knowledge they have acquired … where and how that knowledge was obtained … the kind of flight training have they received … etc. And I would submit that if we don’t know what we want, we’re likely to get everything (anything) under the sun – and given an opportunity, I would rather hire someone who has learned how to fly, rather than hire someone who has been taught how to pass the entrance test.

[error_401]

Thanks Air Rabbit :ok:

[RetiredF4]

AirRabbit
I go back to the military graduate, with something between 200 and 250 hours of total time, flying the right seat of a C-17, across the Atlantic, at night, into the combat zones in the middle east, with "whatever" in the cargo bay, the guy in the left seat, usually with rank of Captain, having probably 2000-3000 hours ... how is that significantly different than what we've been describing for operations in the civilian world? Would the military put that right seater in that position if they thought he/she was incapable of doing the job required? Is there any less concern for correct understanding and operation of the airplane? ... any less demand for competency or professionalism? ... any less expectancy that, if necessary, that pilot would be capable (and expected) to perform like the professional that has been vested with the responsibility that goes along with assignment to that right seat?


Before the future military pilot (US, UK, Germany and comparable) gets a chance to sit even in his first sim for training, a very strict selection process has taken place. And even then its not "train till the guy is Mr. know it all", but adherence to a strict syllabus to be accomplished within a fixed timeframe. You do not have many chances, you most times have only one. And if you bust a checkride or a test (and there are lots of them), you better make sure that it was the only time in the course.Your ability is not creating the timeframe, it has to meet the given timeframe. That applies for all phases of the training, for theory, simulator, and the separate parts of the flying syllabus.
It is not a question of the amount of hours, but of the effectiveness of the given limited training hours. The military commanders are no reccless folks who put uncapable people on gunpowder chairs, they know exactly how qualified those people are. There is no waste of time in their training due to lack of money or any other disturbances. The system is very quick in getting rid of uncapable people who slipped through the preselection process, and therefore highly efficient. And even after you made it in the cockpit with your new shiny wings, the learning and studying is not yet over. You continue to study and learn, the job is not finished after the wheels are on the ground. And again, if you are slow, you are left behind and get a desk job.

I know it, i´ve been there, i´ve done it (not the desk job though).

Now look at the selfmade pilots (my highest respect for their love of flying), the selection process is "available money" (not talent), the timeframe in their training and their hourbuilding is influenced by money (no money, no hours, less money, cheaper training school, longer training periods...), their typerating is influenced by money (they even pay for that one too, the cheapest one), and their first jobs might be at companies with lower standards and with less possibility to increase their limited knowledge by working with a highly qualified and capable captain.

The military system is expensive, but very efficient, the civil system is cheap to employers and organisations, but you also can train a monkey with it. But also a trained monkey still will be a monkey.

With the statement above i dont want to say, that the ex-military pilot is the better pilot for a later civil flying carreer, there are different issues on that topic.

franzl

[doubleu-anker]

RetiredF4

Good post indeed and a view from the military side.

Is washing out a guy/gal early necessarily the right thing? Some people I know have been slow starters but turned out exceptional, at a later stage.

Does the military always attract the top people? Some dont wish to fight. Some dont wish to sell their souls to the system. Some do not wish to blindly follow orders, no matter how stupid. Some people may not be prepared to lay down their lives for the future good of their country. (I am not one I hasten to add) Oh sure the ones that apply to the military and get though are no doubt capable of doing the job. However, is a military trained pilot always the best candidate for a civilian aviation job? I don't think so.

The aggression that accompanies a few ex military people that i know, has no place whatsoever in an airline cockpit.

[RetiredF4]

doubleu-anker
Is washing out a guy/gal early necessarily the right thing? Some people I know have been slow starters but turned out exceptional, at a later stage.

It comes with the job on hand and it is necessary. In military you never quite finish your training. The slow guy will get good on known things, however he will start slow on anything new again. There is no time for it. When standards had been lowered to get enough people into the cockpit during my service-time, we had to deal with those slow-starters. Most made it finally under special treatment, but the fast starters had been better and stayed better in the future.


Does the military always attract the top people? Some dont wish to fight. Some dont wish to sell their souls to the system. Some do not wish to blindly follow orders, no matter how stupid. Some people may not be prepared to lay down their lives for the future good of their country. (I am not one I hasten to add)

It attracts all kind of people as any job does. But the system is set up to filter those guys and girls out who want to do the job and who can cope with the task. You cant buy yourself into the system with money, no way.

Oh sure the ones that apply to the military and get though are no doubt capable of doing the job. However, is a military trained pilot always the best candidate for a civilian aviation job? I don't think so.

As mentioned in the last post, that is a total different story. Some can adapt well, some never will. But the systems are completely different also flying happens in the same airspace for both systems.


The aggression that accompanies a few ex military people that i know, has no place whatsoever in an airline cockpit.

Agression as you name it, i think the correct term would be aggressiveness, comes with the military job and is dependent on the type of task you have to fullfill in the military. A fighter jock in a single seat aircraft needs to be a lot more agressive than the guy doing transports in a c141 with a crew around him. The fighter jock is multitasking all the time, flying, navigating and talking, be prepared to shoot missiles, drop bombs, evade hostile fire, attack other aircraft or defend against them, operating and monitoring lots of gadgets like radar and elint-equipment. Everything happens from ground to FL 450, and at speeds from 180kts to supersonic. And no time to look it up in nice checklist or ask your friendly PNF. You have to know it while it comes up and to do it in the same tenth of a second. You have to be agressive to handle all that.

I know comrades who adapted well to their new job (also outside aviation) and this agressiveness went away after some time, others still have the knive between their teeth.

But to go back to the topic, more hours will not solve the need for better pilots, there might be improvement, but there is no way to reach the real aim.
For that civil aviation would have to adopt a similar preselection and adherance to strict training syllabus like the military does. However that would cost companies a lot of money, on the other hand it would stop young people streaming into pilot schools with lots of dreams and not enough abilities to handle the tasks of modern aviation.

franzl

[AirRabbit]

Now look at the selfmade pilots (my highest respect for their love of flying), the selection process is "available money" (not talent), the timeframe in their training and their hourbuilding is influenced by money (no money, no hours, less money, cheaper training school, longer training periods...), their typerating is influenced by money (they even pay for that one too, the cheapest one), and their first jobs might be at companies with lower standards and with less possibility to increase their limited knowledge by working with a highly qualified and capable captain.
The fact that the “first jobs” for some pilots are with companies that have those “lower standards” and the fact that these newer guys or gals may not be able to work “with a highly qualified and capable captain,” is that the company officials (particularly those in whom the company has placed confidence in being able to hire competent pilots) are just as misinformed as those who think that establishing a 1500 hour minimum (which is the hours requirement to get an unrestricted ATP certificate in the US) will provide a notably higher quality of pilot applicants.

It is, rather, just as you said …
…more hours will not solve the need for better pilots, there might be improvement, but there is no way to reach the real aim.
For that civil aviation would have to adopt a similar preselection and adherance to strict training syllabus like the military does. However that would cost companies a lot of money, on the other hand it would stop young people streaming into pilot schools with lots of dreams and not enough abilities to handle the tasks of modern aviation.
This is the path that I would think professional aviators would be lining up to support … particularly the part about adopting “…a similar preselection and (an) adherence to (a) strict training syllabus like the military does.” Will it cost? Of course, it will. Anything anyone does costs some money. The question is will it cost a company (please feel free to substitute … a pilot … an industry … a country … where I’ve said “company”) more than an accident? Or, is the aviation community (again, please feel free to substitute … company … pilot … industry … country … where I’ve said “the aviation community”) willing to run the risk of the odd circumstance being generated and go unnoticed to the extent that it allows an accident to develop? I certainly can’t speak for other countries, but in the US at least, the economy is significantly dependent on the aviation industry for a good share of its daily functioning. How much? Of course, it varies. But, I do know that immediately after the Airliner Attacks of 9/11, when the US FAA essentially shut down the skies over the US, there were very few businesses that did NOT feel the effects of the absence of that air transportation industry … and that was only for a couple of days. Imagine what it would be like to suffer a 50 to 70 percent reduction in that system – on a more permanent basis … simply due to a lack of competent persons to fly the aircraft! Or, do you think that recognition would be sufficient to generate a willingness to spend the necessary funds to provide for the necessary training … or … sufficient only to generate a willingness to gamble on an operative aviation system, manned by those with a stark lack of talent and precious little training?

Do we – as the aviation professionals of today – need to do anything – “pro-actively” – or do we simply wait for the regulator (responding to public outcry) to “react” to the crumbling nature that is likely to become pilot training … absent any meaningful input? Don’t mistake what I’m saying … I think NOTHING can be done without a regulatory requirement – the “playing field” MUST be leveled – if for no other reason than to avoid some who would invariably attempt to capitalize on the exceptions, deviations, and other loop-holes, to offer competing services at “fair but punitive” costs. Therefore, regulation becomes a must … but, that regulation must be fair and meaningful, and it has to be enforceable … and it has to be enforced!

If I’m wrong – or out on a limb here … fine … I’ll go off into a hole and keep my mouth shut. However, if I’m even close to being right, we NEED to do something. And that something must be to ensure that the aviation regulators change the rules to require appropriate training – require appropriate standards of operation – and not be shy about ensuring that those participating in this industry are doing all they must to uphold their end of the bargain.

There are persons out there who have ideas about how to address the substantial costs and there are others who have been working on methods to conduct pre-application screening of potentially future aviators. These are persons with good interests … avidly believing in what they’re trying to do. But without some sort of mega-tragedy or some sort of “ground-swell” or popular “uprising,” I fear we’re destined to plod our way into oblivion.

[low n' slow]

I have to applaud the passing of this bill.

Judging by what has been uncovered through the buffalo accident, it seems the US has degraded to a further degree than the EU when it comes to working conditions for pilots.

The way I see it, the single biggest problem in the industry is all the newbies that will sell their left nut to get into the cockpit of an airliner. This degrades the possibilites of ever having a decent salary and it has started a spiral dive. P2F programmes is possible because aspiring pilots now have discovered that the long, hard route to becoming a pilot is now possible to bypass by paying your way past the hours. Everybody who wants to and has the money can today fly a heavy jet, something that normally would generate a good wage.

I would expect that someone who has struggled to reach 1500 hours, grafting in some flightschool as an instructor, flown jump-planes, towing gliders or smaller cargo ops, would be much less eager to pay for the job.

Flight time limitations also need to be revised. The "dead-tired" campaign in Europe should have gotten more publicity. The pilot community needs to lobby this in a more agressive way.

So the bill might not be the total solution to all our problems, firstly, it is only happening in the US. But the fact that SOMETHING is happening to handle these problems is good. It's an indicator that they are starting to understand. Now lets just hope that something like this happens in the EU parlament.

/LnS

[AirRabbit]

A step in the right direction
________________________________________
I have to applaud the passing of this bill.
Judging by what has been uncovered through the buffalo accident, it seems the US has degraded to a further degree than the EU when it comes to working conditions for pilots.
The way I see it, the single biggest problem in the industry is all the newbies that will sell their left nut to get into the cockpit of an airliner. This degrades the possibilites of ever having a decent salary and it has started a spiral dive. P2F programmes is possible because aspiring pilots now have discovered that the long, hard route to becoming a pilot is now possible to bypass by paying your way past the hours. Everybody who wants to and has the money can today fly a heavy jet, something that normally would generate a good wage.
I would expect that someone who has struggled to reach 1500 hours, grafting in some flightschool as an instructor, flown jump-planes, towing gliders or smaller cargo ops, would be much less eager to pay for the job.
Flight time limitations also need to be revised. The "dead-tired" campaign in Europe should have gotten more publicity. The pilot community needs to lobby this in a more agressive way.
So the bill might not be the total solution to all our problems, firstly, it is only happening in the US. But the fact that SOMETHING is happening to handle these problems is good. It's an indicator that they are starting to understand. Now lets just hope that something like this happens in the EU parlament.

I’m beginning to think that there may be a larger chasm between the “old heads” and the “newer guys” in airplane cockpits today. It seems that the “old heads” have an easier time recognizing that putting a higher minimum on pilots entering the airline business, while it may make some difference, is not, and cannot be, the solution to the problems that are seen in pilot proficiency, competency, and professionalism. That is a question that can be addressed ONLY by competent and complete training and by following professional cockpit standards.

Maybe I just don’t see the big picture … but it would seem as though some here believe that a “P2F” program allows an airline pilot to plunk down a wad of cash at the “hiring” desk, and be shown to the right seat of an airliner. I am NOT saying that there aren’t some in the industry who would sell their own mothers to make a profit in hauling “whatever” from point A to point B – but the idea of being able to “buy one’s way into a cockpit” seems a bit extreme. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

And then there are those, who, for whatever reason, take the authority to “commute” to their job a bit on the extreme side.
Pilot 1 lives in Los Angeles and flys out of JFK. His trips are 2-legs/3 days, where the first trip on the first day is 8 ½ hours; the 2nd is day off (away from domicile); the 3rd day is a 9 ½ -hour return leg; followed by 5 days off.
Pilot 2 also lives in Los Angeles and also flys out of JFK. His trips consist of 5 days, 4 legs a day on days 1, 2, 4, and 5 (day 3 is off – away from domicile) – where each leg is 1 hour in duration, followed by 3 days off.

These 2 scenarios are NOT even in the same dimension. However, short of the regulator instituting a requirement to have something like … “8 hours of uninterrupted rest at a location that is within a 1-hour travel time to the departure point…” this is not likely to change … as this seems to be almost common in today’s market. I don’t understand why … but it is apparently so. And, even if the regulator WERE to require such a “rest-before-flight” requirement – there are several problems with that … I’ll mention just 2 …
1) Someone living in Los Angeles and flying out of LAX is VERY LIKELY to need enough money to rent a hotel room or an apartment close to the LAX airport – because almost without a doubt, his residence is going to be farther away than can be traveled in 1 hour or less; and
2) On the other end, someone could be flying out of Chicago’s O’Hare airport and live in Cincinnati, Ohio or Lexington, KY, because the flight time between the two is pushing 25 minutes!

If 1500 hours is a good number … would it true to say that 2000 hours would be better? How about 2500 hours? The fact is that the number of hours in a person’s log book is not a real measure of anything other than the amount of ink a logbook page can hold. As I’ve said on this thread previously:

If we place a minimum of 1500 hours of experience on those who will be interested in seeking airline jobs – I think we’re going to see very imaginative ways of being able to present one’s self with the requisite log-book entries … i.e., 1500 hours. What I think we ought to be focusing on is knowing how these potential applicants have been trained … the amount of knowledge they have acquired … where and how that knowledge was obtained … the kind of flight training have they received … etc.

[choppingmotion]

Would be interested in reaction of ALPA, FAA, airlines etc to this (not reported in the LA TImes article quoted).

Anyone know?

[p51guy]

I think 2500 hrs would be better but 1500 is a good start. Nobody with less time should be piloting an airliner with over 100 people on board. Not even 10 people aboard. It wasn't the case years ago and we were not short of pilots. Automation will not replace pilot competency. Pushing buttons works some of the time but a capable pilot works almost all of the time. Disconnecting the autopilot and autothrottle when the aircraft is not doing what you want is much easier than button pushing your way out. But what if you don't trust your flying ability. Then you resort to deserate button pushing when a disconnect, adding power and a right climbing turn makes things perfect.

Did it one day out of Costa Rica when a check airman got everything screwed up on the FMC. We stayed on course until he caught up so we could reengage the automation. It was my IOE as captain on a 757. The 727 was easier because you just made the right climbing turn north, pretty simple. Automation should be there to assist you, not saturate you with panic button pushing when things aren't going right. That is why we need experience in the cockpit, when the button pushing isn't working.

[Whippersnapper]

It seems to me that the biggest hinderance to pilots having good airmanship is modern airlines' insistence on blind following of mediocre and highly prescriptive SOPs with flight data monitoring and management pilots snooping around increasingly used to punish those experienced Captains with enough airmanship to make minor, reasonable, briefed deviations from SOP and show new FOs useful skills and techniques. The knowledge of the older generation is being lost to this management lead dumbing down and leash tightening.

I understand that they need to stop the rogues and cavalier fools, but they're not succeeding in doing so. Those people tend not to care about what the management think and so carry on regardless until they get sacked. It's the intelligent and competent pilots that they're constraining, and the FOs' apprenticeships are suffering as a result.

[p51guy]

I agree totally, my airline now monitors your whole approach with acars and reports if you deviate from sop. Flaps not set at 1,000 ft sets off an alarm. The FO is equally responsible so has to turn in the captain or vice versa. I am so happy to be retired. This does nothing for safety and complicates how you are going to do a visual approach with a short turn on. I see a lot of go arounds or gas gusling level offs to not get busted. Pretty soon you will see all automated approaches. Maybe they won't need pilots any more. We will be as automated as their computer. Can the computer land in the Hudson if they lose both engines?

[protectthehornet]

The San Francisco erzats subway is known as; the Bay Area Rapid Transit or BART.

When it was first designed, there was to be NO drivers in the trains. All automatic...computers.

Needless to say, some 30 years later, they still have drivers.

The first time a computer only plane crashes, no one will get on a computer plane again...so pilots will make a comeback.

[Flightwatch]

Whereas London's Docklands Light Railway (DLR) designed and built 25+ years ago has always been driverless. I have ridden it from it's inception and to this day, on a much enlarged network, there has never been an accident.

All the "train operators" who normally open and close the doors are trained to drive them if there is a computer failure onboard or in the signaling system and this happened not infrequently in the early days. However I have not seen this in recent years. Their normal operating station is at one of the doors near the rear of the train and not at the controls so they are not "hovering" waiting to take over.

Most of the passengers who use London City airport are happy to use it as am I along with thousands of daily commuters and residents, we shall see if our optimism is well placed.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Flightwatch everything is more important and difficult in the air, than it is on the ground; you know that:E

[AirRabbit]

I think 2500 hrs would be better but 1500 is a good start. Nobody with less time should be piloting an airliner with over 100 people on board. Not even 10 people aboard. It wasn't the case years ago and we were not short of pilots. Automation will not replace pilot competency. Pushing buttons works some of the time but a capable pilot works almost all of the time. Disconnecting the autopilot and autothrottle when the aircraft is not doing what you want is much easier than button pushing your way out.

In a perfect world I’d have a hard time NOT agreeing with you. You’re also correct about it not being the case “years ago” when “we were not short of pilots.” But, there was time, before that, when airlines were hiring pilots with the absolute barest of minimums – some of whom went to the F/E panel and others went directly to the right seat. In fact, I recall one airline that actually bought (and painted in the airline livery) an AeroCommander that was often used to evaluate the flying abilities of some of those “whipper snappers.” It was primarily used to ensure that when these “youngsters” got enough seniority to bid and hold a Captain’s line, there was enough knowledge absorbed before (and after, in some cases) these “newer” pilots had a shot at the airplane simulator training … and, as an aside, I can’t tell you how far simulation has come in those intervening years.

Of course, after the late 1960’s, with the Viet Nam era veterans flooding out of the military, you could throw a rock and hit 12 people out of every 50 who were lined up as applicants ... where all 12 would have between 2000 and 5000 hours of heavy, multi-engine, turbojet time; have their ATP and FE certificates; a type rating on some turbojet machine; be under 27 years of age; and look like “Steve Canyon.” And if, for some reason, candidate number 11 or 12, didn’t have the right eye color or some other disqualifying trait, surely somewhere in the remaining 38 candidates, ALL the “right stuff” could be found.

That is no longer the picture. If some of the predictions I’ve heard are correct – and I tend to believe they are – between 2013 and 2023, in the US alone, fully one-half of the airline pilots will retire. With 120,000 airline pilots on the books now – that means 60,000 pilots will retire during that 10-year period. That means, for US consumption alone – not considering any airline expansion – there will have to be approximately 115 pilots produced every week – that is every week – throughout that 10-year period. If we insist on 1500, or 2000, or 2500 hours as an entry minimum for each – I’m not sure how that is going to be met.

[protectthehornet]

if you set high standards, people will work hard to meet them. and if there isn't enough pilots, the planes will get bigger to carry more per pilot.

[Propjet88]

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with many of the sentiments expressed here but I am ion complete agreement with Ledsled.

It is (or should be) all about competence. We have been very slack in the airline world and have substituted "lots of hours" for "competence". However, as some have said, the days when multi - thousand hour pilots were lining up for jobs are rapidly coming to an end.

The recent decision to mandate 1500 hours for airline pilots is noting more than a knee jerk. Where is the science in that number? 1500 hours does not designate comptence - nor does any other number.

It is all about standards of initial, conversion and upgrade training and appropriate metrics to determine achieving and maintaining competence at each level.

The Colgan accident revealed many important issues that really are safety factors in the industry today - pilot hours was not one of them. Sadly, the others are more politically difficult to deal with.

Fly Safe
PJ88

P.S. On the subject of SOPs and flight data monitoring, the older I get, the more I have come to believe that solid adhereance to well written SOPs is a cornerstone of safety. The introduction of ALARS stable approach criteria and mandatory go - arounds will continue to save lives. So, to all those who believe that the airline profession is about individiualism and flair - sorry those days are over.

[p51guy]

A 250 hr cram course to get an airline job is better than at least 1500 hrs of real flying is the answer? I don't think so. An airline cockpit should not be part of your initial training to figure out what really goes on out there. I have been single pilot in a 737 because the FO couldn't even copy a clearance. He had his ratings but no experience. I would have been better off single pilot that day. He wouldn't have had to do a 360 on final to lose altitude and slow down if he had 1500 hrs or more.

[Propjet88]

P51,
So 1500 hours in Dad's 172 would have fixed it?
Your FO's training - not hours - was the problem. You say "he had his ratings". This sums up the issue. The "ratings", as currently run, do not measure the necessary competencencies. It is the training system (including ratings) that needs to change.

[p51guy]

My first 1500 hrs was a little crop dusting, lots of instructing and some charter plus I paid for it all myself for the initial training. I went to Embry Riddle to get my commercial not realizing it was a waste of money because their ads about getting you an airline job were not exactly true. You have to get beat up a bit in this profession to gain the necessary experience. Flying freight in a D18 helps. My first day flying the 737 I could actually be an asset to my captain.

[fiftypercentn1]

Well said propjet88, training is what counts. And even more importantly selection before it. Some people need less time/hrs to get to the required level, and vice versa. Some people will never become very good pilots, some people get there fast. Human nature.

Decades of people who started flying fast (military) jets with few hundreds hours prove it.
And cadets straight to fast (commercial) jets with only a couple of hundreds hours are another sound proof (and this has always happened in all the majors, all over the world).
Having said all of this I agree that experience in very important, and no company should lack of a good percentage of its pilots with plenty of it.

As I said, i my opinion, the safest way is:
-Strict selection
-Good training
As simple as that.

The authorities should make it compulsory, and forbid any other way of accessing the job. And forbid any forms of charging the pilot for any training after the CPL. If you company can t afford this you end the business, end of story.
2/3/4000 hrs ONLY, won't guarantee anything.

When people with this background will have flown many years they will be able to train at high standards the new people, and so on.

Problem is..all of this costs MONEY, this is why unfortunately it will never happen.
So we can talk about this for years, but until REAL laws are made (to restrict the companies) and big changes in attitude are taken by the authorities, nothing will ever change.

[Junkflyer]

I don't see anything wrong with requiring an Airline Transport Rating to fly passengers in an airliner.

[p51guy]

My initial airline wouldn't hire anybody from the outside without the ATR. They reduced our requirements for our FE's when their job went away. It made sense to me. Isn't that what the ATR is for, flying an airliner?

[carrots]

Interesting conflict of thoughts here. Does 1500 hours in a cessna make you a better multi-crew jet pilot? I think not, and neither do BA or Lufthansa.

BA has had 250 hour cadets in jets since they started training folks at Hamble, and are seemingly very happy with the results (you may have flown in the back of a 757 with one of them). Indeed, try getting into BA with 1500 piston time and no approved training course and you will be shown the door. Documented assessments on every one of those 250 hours + sim time is somewhat more use in determining someone's ability than 1500 hours unmonitored PIC potentially doing as one wishes and cutting corners.

Automoation use is a valid on-going debate. However, again I dont think that flying a light single is really going to be a massive amount of use when trying to fly an ILS in manual reversion on the 73; taking some power off in a stall because the pitch-power couple is too great; or remembering not to jab the rudder pedals in an A300 like you used to in a Piper.

Its about recruiting the right people and training them well. A catch-all 1500 hours requirement is (as many have said here already) an easy knee-jerk reaction that does nothing to improve flight safety or address any of the real issues regarding training, assessment and fatigue.

As an aside, P51 guy,

I agree totally, my airline now monitors your whole approach with acars and reports if you deviate from sop. Flaps not set at 1,000 ft sets off an alarm. The FO is equally responsible so has to turn in the captain or vice versa.
If you had a valid reason to not be fully configured when your airline requires you to, put in a report and explain why. I'm sure they will commend your airmanship. However, unstable approaches and deviation from SOPs "because I know better" are a dangerous mindset, proven by many an incident and accident.

[AirRabbit]

Propjet88 / fiftypercentn1 / carrots
Thanks guys! Well said, each of you.

[AerocatS2A]

My first 1500 hrs was a little crop dusting, lots of instructing and some charter plus I paid for it all myself for the initial training. I went to Embry Riddle to get my commercial not realizing it was a waste of money because their ads about getting you an airline job were not exactly true. You have to get beat up a bit in this profession to gain the necessary experience. Flying freight in a D18 helps. My first day flying the 737 I could actually be an asset to my captain.
That's great, but Congress aren't mandating 1500 hours including crop dusting, instructing, and charter, they are mandating 1500 hours. You could've done 1500 hours in Dad's C172 going round and round in the circuit plus the bare minimum of cross country and night to meet the ATPL requirements.

1500 hours and an ATPL is not experience, it is a number and a qualification that sometimes corresponds to experience and sometimes doesn't. My first 1200 hours were spent turning people upside down in a Pitts Special, great fun, turned me into a good hands-on pilot, but totally useless in terms of preparing me for multi-crew turbine. In contrast, the subsequent 2000 hours flying single pilot multi-engine IFR with two other non-pilot flight crew in a company with mature procedures prepared me very well for multi-crew turbine.

1500 hours is meaningless, it's what you've done in those 1500 hours that counts.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The European airlines that have/had cadet programs that resulted in 250 hr narrow body jet FO's cannot be compared to what is happening in North America....and lately much of Europe. These programs work because of an extremely demanding selection process. Since the airlines were paying for all the training they were not going to waste money on marginal candidates. Does anyone think that the captain of the Colgan air Q400 crash , would have been accepted and made it through the old BA cadet scheme given his record of failed check rides and other indications of poor performance ?

But if the student is paying the training provider than there is a strong financial pressure not to turn away marginal but well funded students. Indeed a marginal student that needs more training means more profit for the training provider.

There is no practical way to address this fundamental problem, but a requirement that airline pilots have airline transport licenses will IMO weed out most of those pilots that ultimately do not have the aptitude. P2F works for 100 or 200 hrs but buying 1500 hrs of "experience" is not going to happen very often. These folks are going to have to get real jobs on their way to 1500 hrs.

[NephewBob]

Thanks junkflyer.

The legislation is for an ATP rating, which requires at least 1500hrs total.

The media (& consequently many respondents here, locked on to the 1500 hour thing "Why not 2500 hours etc")

History: Way back in the early days, there were quite a few airline prangs, so the forerunner of the FAA made a regulation that the PIC (we are talking circa DC-2 days) in addition to a Commercial Pilot Certificate, must fullfil the requirements and obtain an Airline Transport Pilot Rating.

It came to pass, that airlines self regulated (jet age) through market forces etc. that the minimum for new hires (even for 2nd officer/FE) was an ATP. (Also in many other markets, (countries) outside the US)

Without Commercial experience, a newly graduated CPL only has a license to learn.
If that sounds harsh, any aviation rating also carries that "disclaimer"

"A smart man learns from his mistakes, a wise man learns from the mistakes of others"

In reverse many GA/freight companies (Part 135) in the early '80's would only hire CPL IR, to fly twin cessnas etc (same pay as an airline junior BTW) as any experienced ATP holder would be "off to the airlines" after 6 months.

Fast forward, you rarely see 19 seat turboprops any more, let alone the 9 seat Piper Navajo's etc in airline service nowadays. That niche has been filled by Regional jets, and in the case of Buffalo, a 75 seat Q-400.

Yes it is still all part 121, but the division between the big blokes, and the regionals, experience wise, has become a vast yawning gap.

Disliking over regulation as much as the next man (Orville & Wilbur would not have gotten through the maze), I have to lean towards this one.

I think what the US congress are saying, is that if you want to fly an airliner, you must obtain an airline pilot's licence. Most of us did.

[AirRabbit]

While I really do understand the situation – and some of us have been down this particular road previously, but there is more than one way to skin that proverbial cat. If we take a moment and look at how the military in the US hires, trains, and utilizes new pilots – and take a page from that book, why is it the airline industry (hopefully with the assistance of the government) couldn’t do almost exactly the same thing?

US Air Force and Navy pilots start their training – most of them anyway – with about as close to zero knowledge and experience as one can get. A year later they sport a shiny new set of pilot wings and with a relatively short course of additional training – for the transport stuff, anyway – they begin to fly as a co-pilot. At that point in their short career, most of those guys have between 230 and 250 hours of flight time (total). Are they the “ace of the base?” No, of course not. But they are competent and they generally know what they know and don’t tend to push the envelope into areas they don’t know. Why couldn’t the US transportation industry do essentially the same thing? It takes 2 separate actions … careful screening (very careful screening) and diligent training (very diligent training). No punches are pulled and everyone is expected to learn what they need to learn or they go someplace else. Cost – yeah – it’ll cost … probably a lot. But hear me out.

What if the US Departments of Defense, Education, Commerce, Transportation, and Labor all got together with (pick a number of) aviation training organizations – (very likely NOT much like many organizations out there at the moment – although, not knowing a lot about more than a very few – there may be some that are just perfect for what I’m describing) – and with organizations like ALPA, APA, ATA, RAA, and throw in a few more letters if you like … including the individual applicant for a portion of the cost (for something like 15 - 20 % of the total) ... and develop a program that is similar to what ICAO has described – called MPL. The process should be one that is divided between flying and ground school subjects (note the plural …) where the “flying” portion would be divided … something between 65 and 75 percent in simulation and between 25 and 35 percent in airplanes.

Before I get clobbered here – let me point out that programs like this have been in “beta” testing for quite some time – all over the globe. There are 13 such programs either in progress, just started or starting within a couple of weeks – all differing to some degree in some of the aspects of the program. Those in operations have been carefully watched and are apparently providing some very positive results.

The programs vary slightly from organization to organization – but is divided into 4 phases where the first 2 phases are in basic flight training devices (differing names and titles depending on where the training takes place) and the airplane – with airplane time divided between dual instruction and solo. The hours in a simulation device during these first 2 phases range from 85 hours to 150 hours, and from 85 to 135 hours in an airplane. Phase 3 is all simulation and ranges from a low of 20 hours (only one – next lowest was 30) and a high of 160 hours. Phase 4 is also conducted in a simulation device – but it’s the top end (i.e., Level D simulator) for the same airplane the students will ultimately be flying. This training range is from about 30 hours to a high of 120 – and the 120 hour program has the first 50 hours in a basic training device for the specific airplane and the balance in the Level D simulator for the specific airplane.

The ground school hours across the entire course varies from 800 to 2270 hours.

At the conclusion of this training, each “student” has to complete between 12 and 30 takeoffs and landings in the actual airplane they will be flying, and then complete between 40 and 200 sectors of line flying – some of that time from the jump seat – but the data to which I have access doesn’t clearly indicate how much. The entire course length – start to finish – 14 months to 36 months (with only one at the 36 month point and the next highest at 24 months). Of the 13 programs only 7 have completed students at this point – and the number of students completed so far is right at 400.

Of those programs completed so far, the breakdown of simulator to airplane hours ranged from 62% simulator and 38% airplane for those on the lower end totals, and 76% simulator and 24% airplane for the higher end totals before counting the required takeoffs and landings in the airplane and, of course, before the actual sector flying.

The reports I’ve been able to see (from the line check persons conducting the required sector flying) are rather impressive. They include comments like “impressive young man,” “knowledgeable, proficient pilot,” and “will have no problem with regular line flying.” I’ve only been able to see reports on those who have finished – and, as you would expect, not everyone who starts, finishes, but I’m told that the graduation rate is above 80% for all the programs graduating students.

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

This is a highly emotive issue that is very difficult to have a rational discussion on. There is also a significant cultural difference in approach between the Europeans and Americans. Traditional US thinking on the subject is that hours are everything and that you need to 'do your time' on pretty well anything before you can enter the realms of jet flying. The European approach has been increasingly to value 'high-quality training' above hours of flight time. Part of the driver for this has been the emergence of ab-initio training organisations, like CTC in the UK, who offer great selection and extremely expensive training, but a virtual guarantee if a placement with a partner airline.

I am a Training Captain (Check Airman in US parlance) with one of Europe's larger jet airlines where we have historically taken pilots from a wide variety of backgrounds (turboprop, military fast jet and transport, north sea helicopter, low-houred cadet, single-engine flying instructor etc). More recently, for cost cutting purposes we have tended to recruit from cadet courses. We therefore have 155 hour pilots in some cases who have their first job as an A320 or 737 First Officer. They are well selected and trained, but my observations are that there is no experience like experience. You simply cannot beat 'stick time' with any amount of good training. That is not to knock the calibre of the basic candidate - it simply states the obvious. Therefore to knock someone with 1500 hours on a Cessna 172 is very unwise. The truth of such an individual is that he most likely achieved that figure as an instructor and therefore has not got quite as much stick time as first seemed the case. Nonetheless he has a great background to build on.

The US change of law is basically worthless because it does not deal with the cultural issue deep within US pilot psyche which values hours in their own right but does not emphasise selection on grounds of aptitude to the correct level. Similarly the Europeans have failed to see the value of experience and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

I can only say what my own conclusion is after all this time as to what makes a good airline pilot. It is a combination of 5 core issues - Aptitude, Training, Knowledge, Skill and Experience. Without the first two (the great strengths of the Europeans) the other three will never be enough. However, until you have the last three you are seriously at risk and should be very wary indeed. The problem with the European system is that not enough emphasis or value is placed on those last three, thereby opening the way to problems. In other words neither of us has got it totally right at the moment, and we both need to change.

[protectthehornet]

Why "cadet" programs don't work in the USA.

You see, we are a country in which an individual works hard to get ahead...competes with all of those around him. And selection process will often overlook extreme motivation.

Motivation, hard work, dedication, and things that can not be placed into a selection process calculus would get over looked. A cadet who gets 250 hours and then starts in a nice comfortable Airbus 320 series has not paid his dues.

It is the guy who sleeps on the couch at the little airport waiting for a new student to build a few hours...someone who ''suffers for his art" if you will.

A selection process won't make a great artist (painter)...but it might save him cutting off his ear.

I've flown as copilot to a guy who was an air force (usaf) guy who became a C141 copilot at 250 hours. He was a crappy captain and didn't know much (even after years in the air force and years at the airline). I pointed out that his oil quantity was low on number two engine (prior to takeoff...JT8D). He looked at me, a 3 year copilot by that time and said: what should we do? I told him that it might come up when we add power and we should monitor it as we spooled up on the runway. He had never heard of such a thing...but of course it worked.

later on, on the same flight, I said we should fly at FL230 to avoid turbulence. He told me that was terribly stupid and we should fly HIGH to get best fuel burn. So UP we went...knocked around terribly. We came back down to FL230, GOT DIRECT EVERYWHERE cuz no one else was there and came in early, under fuel burn with a smoother flight.

He said we made a great team. I told him I would never fly with him again and he was an idiot.

So, there you have it. One line of a cadet type program and another, the suffering artist.

I would not have qualified for a cadet program...but my motivation to excel as a pilot may not have been quantifiable in a selection process.

Its also why Wilbur and Orville made it and Langley didn't.

[AerocatS2A]

You see, we are a country in which an individual works hard to get ahead...competes with all of those around him. And selection process will often overlook extreme motivation.
And yet US airlines participate in a rigid seniority system that both rewards nothing other than waiting patiently in line as well as inhibiting sideways movement between companies and therefore inhibiting competition in conditions. Once you start with a company you're stuck there unless you want to go to the bottom of the ladder with another. That is not in line with your stated cultural philosophy of individual hard work being rewarded and yet it works as well there as it does in other countries (has its pros and cons.) I don't buy your argument. I think the difference between Europe and the US in aviation is that the US actually has a decent GA industry in which pilots can get some experience, Europe doesn't so much and they've been forced into the system they currently use. The US doesn't have a MPL type system because it doesn't need to, yet.

[protectthehornet]

aerocat

I agree with you about the seniority system. I really do. But we are talking about getting the job, and not progressing once you have the job.

The USA does have a strong GA system...but it is much weaker than 30 years ago.

certain tax incentives for airplane ownership are gone (leaseback). and the GI bill of rights (which I used) no longer supports flight instruction.

[fiftypercentn1]

Motivation, hard work, dedication, and things that can not be placed into a selection process calculus would get over looked. A cadet who gets 250 hours and then starts in a nice comfortable Airbus 320 series has not paid his dues.

It is the guy who sleeps on the couch at the little airport waiting for a new student to build a few hours...someone who ''suffers for his art" if you will

I really don t see what's wrong if someone is a good pilot, was trained properly and gets recruited to go to a fast jet in a good company. He will have worked hard as well, and he is a good investment for the company.
It' s very good to build your way up, and most of the times is the only option anyway. But why can you not just be happy for someone who the company believes in (AND INVEST $$$, I am not referring to any of the self sponsored Type Rating/line trainings etc..) and who will most likely be a very good pilot?

Anyway flying plenty of hours is not enough for some people unfortunately, this is why the selections are (should be) intended to go beyond hours/motivation/type ratings etc..

Sometimes we are our own enemies, these energies should be used to go against the managers when they come up with self sponsored programs and destroy the terms for everyone. Not to fight our own colleagues.
This is why all these practices should be stopped by the governments, because we will never stick toghether and finish them ourselves.

[TimeOnTarget]

Militant, litigious Political Correctness is a big part of the problem in the USA along with the fact that nobody wants to pay for quality training. Too many sub-standard people sue when they don't get their way. Equality is such a beautiful thing....

Having flown on both sides of the house now, military and 121, I can say that the military system is superior. But, as many have pointed out, it begins with a more rigorous selection process.

It seems to me that many of the hour requirements have been driven by the insurance companies. They have had to find some kind of quantifiable factor to judge pilots by.

I like the ab initio concept. Our society has to realize that competent pilots are a long term investment that provides a high rate of return. The problem is that you might have to get killed (Colgan) to find out......:ugh:

[AirRabbit]

The US doesn't have a MPL type system because it doesn't need to, yet.
In my view … the best statement of the day!

What I have reported above looks to be pretty generalized across the spectrum. If these program tests are accurate, it will take a 2-year program to generate the kind of “right-seater” that we would want to see in that seat. If it takes a year or 2 to put together one of these programs, we are going to get to the point you described as “yet,” well before we are ready. I believe our society has become so enamored of, and driven by, “instantaneous gratification” … that we will get way too impatient and decide that the 3- to 4-year wait is too much, and move on to some other less valid but more immediate methodology. I just don’t want to waste time in finding out that some predetermined log book entries – regardless of the devotion of the individuals involved – may not be what we wanted it to be. I would much rather invest time and energy in developing a program that has been shown to be effective (through the military examples AND now through these “beta” test program examples) and have it available to provide a professional first officer for airline operations – even if it is only used to supplement the source provided by the “1500-hour-pilot-sleeping-on-the-sofa-in-the-ready-room-and-mowing-lawns-to-get-the-next-rating” methodology. I’m not trying to get into an “I’m-right-and-you’re-wrong” discussion with anyone. I just want to do all that I can to ensure that those we wind up putting into those airline right seats are the folks we would all want to see there. Our sources are not what they used to be. We are going to have to take people with less total time and less experience than we’ve been used to seeing – that is just about a GIVEN. How we do whatever we do will be something we all have to live (and pardon me, or die) with, and use, regardless of the level of competency we get. Quality in equipment will go a long way toward maintaining the existing safety level – however, while humans do make mistakes, I strongly believe we cannot afford to depend on equipment operation to substitute for professional competency.

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

protectthehornet - your reply just shows the enormous difficulties of this issue. Not only do you think you were a great co-pilot surrounded by bad captains (I wonder what take they would have had), but you do not understand the point that is being made. The mere fact that there guys out there who think that a pilot has to 'pay his dues' before he flies a jet spells enormous difficulties for the legislature. You do not want pilots in jets who have paid their dues - you want people who are most able to do the job. I have no interest whether a guy has done 1500 hours crop dusting or whatever - I care if he is overall best suited to the job. That is the whole point of selection - it ensures that it is not some guy's mate who has 'done his time', but rather the guy who has been objectively assessed as having the right material. It is not perfect, but I simply do not buy into the US argument - the flight safety statistics do not support that view either. I am a big believer in so much about the USA, and it truly is the land of aviation. There is much for the rest of the world to learn from, but in this area I think the Europeans have a little to offer too!

[protectthehornet]

fletcher

as you don't fly in the USA...I do think your views are a bit tainted. 1500 hours of crop dusting time doesn't get you an ATP...it is a wide variety of cross country and instrument time, night time too.

Each tribe of aviators has its own strengths and weaknesses. The ab initio type is to flying as a mcdonald's hamburger is to cooking.

and i would take someone with 1500 hours of cropdusting time over many other types of time.

The only reason this law had to come into being is the economic realities of regional airlines paying CRAP.

they would have very experienced pilots if they were paying 150k or more a year to a captain. but they don't.

its all about money, isn't it?

[RetiredF4]

AirRabbit

My highest respect, your analysis and your arguments are right on the spot.
All organisations involved in commercial aviation should come to the same result in view of safety.

And it is not only about the FO on the right seat, few years later those Fo´s are needed for the upgrades to captains. And they will train the future FO´s..........

franzl

[TyreCreep]

The European airlines that have/had cadet programs that resulted in 250 hr narrow body jet FO's cannot be compared to what is happening in North America....and lately much of Europe. These programs work because of an extremely demanding selection process. Since the airlines were paying for all the training they were not going to waste money on marginal candidates.
-- snip --
But if the student is paying the training provider than there is a strong financial pressure not to turn away marginal but well funded students. Indeed a marginal student that needs more training means more profit for the training provider.

Unfortunately some airlines in Europe have cadet programmes where the cadets pay for everything - including type rating, line flying training, and in some cases even line flying (after being cleared to line) up to a certain number of hours.
Your assessment after "but" is quite correct.

[Big Pistons Forever]

protectthehornet - your reply just shows the enormous difficulties of this issue. Not only do you think you were a great co-pilot surrounded by bad captains (I wonder what take they would have had), but you do not understand the point that is being made. The mere fact that there guys out there who think that a pilot has to 'pay his dues' before he flies a jet spells enormous difficulties for the legislature. You do not want pilots in jets who have paid their dues - you want people who are most able to do the job. I have no interest whether a guy has done 1500 hours crop dusting or whatever - I care if he is overall best suited to the job. That is the whole point of selection - it ensures that it is not some guy's mate who has 'done his time', but rather the guy who has been objectively assessed as having the right material. It is not perfect, but I simply do not buy into the US argument - the flight safety statistics do not support that view either. I am a big believer in so much about the USA, and it truly is the land of aviation. There is much for the rest of the world to learn from, but in this area I think the Europeans have a little to offer too!

If that "a little to offer" includes your Airline(Easyjet) practices of only accepting one flight schools graduates so it can get a kickback, using the TRTO as a profit centre and insisting that new FO's pay to fly, than frankly I very much hope that North American airlines never learn the "European" way.:=

[PBL]

I believe the issue of competence for airline transport pilots is more subtle than some contributors have yet acknowledged.

It appears that there are two general systems for educating ATPs. Give or take a little bit, they are as follows. One is relatively loosely-structured instruction plus lots of hours built up who knows how (crop dusting, cancelled-check transport back in the days, the people I knew did it all by ab initio instructing); plus hours in twins and a check ride. The other is systematic pre-selection, oriented full-time training according to a detailed syllabus developed with a series of potential future employers (airlines); plus hours plus check rides. The first is used by US civilian airlines. The second is used by most AFs (including the USAF) and many European airlines.

Norman Stanley Fletcher pointed out that both systems have advantages and weaknesses. He was criticised by one commentator for (presumed) lack of experience of the US situation; by another for, well, working for Easyjet I think (that cannot be a serious point).

There is a study by Michael W. Gillen in the July 2010 edition of AeroSafety World, the FSF's monthly journal/magazine, on the proficiency of some 30 presumably relatively randomly selected pilots for US airlines. I cited it in the Islamabad thread in http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/422401-airblue-down-near-islamabad-28.html#post5893250 ; the URL for the article by itself is Diminishing Skills? by Michael W. Gillen (http://flightsafety.org/asw/jul10/asw_jul10_p30-34.pdf). The pilots were observed while performing 5 standard manoeuvres in a simulator, and on each manoeuvre the mean performance was lower than that required of an airline transport pilot; on two out of the five, it was lower than that required for basic instrument flying.

What does this study tell us? There are a number of choices:
1. Apparently the skills exhibited during the course of their work by some subgroup of 30 professional airline pilots are not up to snuff;
2. Apparently there is a problem with the system of training and currency in US airlines;
3. Apparently the methods used for recurrent training ("currency requirements") used overwhelmingly by the world's (better) airlines are insufficient to assure the retention of the necessary level of skill;
4. There is something wrong with the study.

It is a well-written article which takes care not to claim more than has been shown and I don't see anyone proposing option 4.

Some indirectly questioned selection criteria (option 1) but the question is whether the sample is significantly unrepresentative; whether any other group of 30 pilots would have done considerably better. So, is it unrepresentative or not?

One contributor went for option 2, averring "from experience" that UK CAA-certified crew would do better.

A couple of commentators went for option 3, as I do.

One can go round for ever discussing the Colgan Air crash, and the lessons for hiring/proficiency/currency and undoubtedly one will do so (and the FAA is obliged to, as is the NTSB if any of the FAA's reactions to their recommendations are classified as "response unsatisfactory"). Brits and Europeans can say "it can't happen here" - until it does.

I cited the Gillen article in the context of a discussion as to whether CTL is a relatively risky manoeuvre in a fast commercial transport when it needs to be used, or whether it is a routine manoeuvre that all competent instrument-rated pilots ought to be able to undertake without problems. If one plumps for option 3, then one could well believe that both are the case!

I think option 3 represents a major problem and needs discussion.

In a completely different context, that of computer programming, the question has been aired for at least a couple of decades why there is so much badly-designed and badly-written software around, and why more than half of large software projects end up abandoned (usually after enormous amounts of money have been spent). One answer is that the demand for programmers is increasing enormously, whereas, as a colleague of mine once said, "time was, there were about thirty competent programmers in the world. And things have not changed." One might well consider this point, and how it applies to all professions requiring high levels of skill, such as that of professional transport pilots.

PBL

[AirRabbit]

There is a study by Michael W. Gillen in the July 2010 edition of AeroSafety World, the FSF's monthly journal/magazine, on the proficiency of some 30 presumably relatively randomly selected pilots for US airlines. I cited it in the Islamabad thread in Airblue down near Islamabad; the URL for the article by itself is Diminishing Skills? by Michael W. Gillen. The pilots were observed while performing 5 standard manoeuvres in a simulator, and on each manoeuvre the mean performance was lower than that required of an airline transport pilot; on two out of the five, it was lower than that required for basic instrument flying.
I cited the Gillen article in the context of a discussion as to whether CTL is a relatively risky manoeuvre in a fast commercial transport when it needs to be used, or whether it is a routine manoeuvre that all competent instrument-rated pilots ought to be able to undertake without problems. If one plumps for option 3, then one could well believe that both are the case!

I was aware of Captain Gillen’s article in AeroSafety World, and was interested, from the start, as to what might be thought by the magazine’s readership. The reason for my interest is that it is apparent the participants in this “study,” work for airlines conducting training and checking programs approved in accordance with the FAA’s Advanced Qualification Program, or AQP. The FAA advertises this program on the FAA website as follows:
The Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) is a voluntary alternative to the traditional regulatory requirements under CFR 14, Parts 121 and 135 for pilot training and checking. Under the AQP the FAA is authorized to approve significant departures from traditional requirements, subject to justification of an equivalent or better level of safety.
My focus is on the part that states “…the FAA is authorized to approve significant departures from traditional requirements.” Let me point out that I’m not ignoring the phrase that follows; namely that these “departures from traditional requirements” are “subject to justification of an equivalent or better level of safety.” My interest comes from an admitted lack of knowledge. If my company wanted to “depart from” the traditional requirement to train for instrument approaches, what “equivalent level of safety” would be required? How would that equivalent level of safety be demonstrated? Would training on a VNAV approach suffice for training on precision approaches? Would it include auto-coupled precision approaches? Would it include non-precision approaches? What would my training program be required to include? From what I can gather from conversations during a few recently place phone calls and candid discussions on pilot training issues, every US airline may submit a differing justification for “departing from” any portion of the currently required training and checking requirements; and that includes differing justifications for deviating from the same requirement. How does that work? Is there or is there not supposed to be a standard to which airline pilots are held?

Captain Gillen’s article concludes with the following paragraph:
Airline safety can be improved by ensuring that pilots are competent not only when all advanced instrumentation is functioning but also when that instrumentation fails. Pilots possessed these basic instrument skills at one time in their careers, and their skill levels can be increased through training and practice.
Could it be that the results of the research cited by Captain Gillen actually point out a weakness in the on-going programs of some US Airlines – perhaps restricted to those training under AQP – perhaps not? If true, would that weakness be limited to the cited piloting tasks of 1) takeoff; 2) V1 cut; 3) holding; 4) ILS approach; 5) missed approach ... or might those weaknesses be dependent on what “authorizations to deviate” may have included?

[BandAide]

One thing I know is that the annual sim session is crowded by mandatory events that must be achieved, regardless of their utility on the line or contribution to safety.

Wouldn't it be grand if you could go to recurrent training with a list of things you want to work on based on problems you've encountered or an assessment of your own weaknesses? Forget it; not going to happen.

One thing I know for sure. I've spent way to much time practising engine out go arounds that will never, ever happen in real life. Has there ever been an instance anyone knows about? I appreciate the value of flying asymmetrics, and I like the V1 cut, but that's all I need.

I'd rather spend the time practicing the 31 Expressway Visual, or the Canarsie VOR, thank you very much.

[protectthehornet]

that expressway visual to 31 at LGA is a nice one...the key is to be set up near maspeth (where the tanks WERE)...2500 feet with max takeoff flaps and gear down, start to follow the expressway adding flaps on speeds to landing config prior to 1000'

maintain a descent rate consistent with a glideslope along the whole path...decreasing descent rate as you configure for landing.

join final, compensate for winds aloft and at surface...you really need to know the winds and suck on to that vasi right away...use the proper vasi bars as the upwind is for widebody.

good luck

[Pollution IV]

Why do people think that a simple raising of hrs requirements will fix the problem of shoddy acft handling, poor discipline and low tech knowledge ie poor Airmanship. The long held belief that hrs in the logbook = greater proficiency and expertise, is truly misguided and any no. of air crash events involving very experienced crews making fundamental errors will attest to that. The FAA 1500hrs requirement is purely born out of expediency and lack of drive to employ real corrective measures through relevant and focused trng. As with all things, we simply look for the quick fix. Until regulators force all air operators to provide fair and adequate trng to their pilots, accidents due to pilot error (mishandling) will continue to occur.

Modern day airline pilots are so overwhelmed with pointless admin, procedures and automation complacency/policy, that their actual flying skills are almost non-existent, even at highly regarded airlines like my employer. So who is to blame for this? Whenever an accident occurs, the airline is examined as they are the ones who employ the pilots and own the acft. Pilots like to be considered as professionals, but increasingly their professionalism is being compromised by the commercial imperative to keep aviation affordable and to increase profits for the airline. The problem is that the company does not provide them with the necessary practise to hone their flying skills to anything but an ever deceasing minimum standard. Sadly there's no easy fix, as any airline that does spend the additional money on adequate sim trng will quickly find itself behind the eight ball financially, as other lesser airlines simply conduct the regulators bare minimum. The common cry we hear from Airline Management is that the traveling public demand cheaper airfares, thus all airlines must operate to increasingly stringent budgets - this is truly specious reasoning. Do we ask a doctor to cut corners on our treatment? Do we want an electrician to wire our homes in a shoddy manner to save a few bucks or expect our accountant to claim illegal deductions that would put us in jail? Then why would the average passenger be happy with a lowering of standards in the pilots that fly them around in potentially life threatening situations? The answer is they just don't know any better. The traveling public trust the regulators to ensure that air travel meets all reasonable levels of safety and that any disreputable outfit would be grounded - they pay taxes to allow these gov't bodies to achieve that goal. The 'average joe' knows nothing about what is a safe standard and what isn't in aviation , just as he doesn't know what medical practises are endorsed or if a 5 or 50Amp fuse should be installed in their household circuit board or what tax agreements there are between countries 'X' and 'Y', hence they pay professionals to do that for them.

There are regulating bodies for all important industries and they are responsible for safe standards. They should be ensuring airlines don't go on the cheap with trng and recruitment, something that has been happening continuously throughout the time I've been in this industry -the LCC phenomenon is a readily identifiable case in point. Professionals paying for their own endorsements and in some cases for their own recurrent checking and trng, allows Airlines to devolve themselves of their responsibility for ensuring even the most meagre of standards. This is truly a miscarriage of proper conduct in any professional industry. I believe that Aviation regulators worldwide have been doing the traveling public a great disservice by promoting air travel rather than properly supervising it. We're seeing a highly dangerous paradigm of capitalist forces being allowed to determine the relative safety levels of important industries that are inherently complex and if conducted carelessly, can lead to disaster and loss of life. As a non-aviation eg. just consider the recent BP oil drilling catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, in regards to the need for good governance by regulators instead of tolerating corporate greed. Notably, BP would be far better off as a company if it was denied a licence to drill in such a precarious location.

Flying skills, regardless of how long you've had them (ie. hrs in the logbook) or how much innate talent you possess, are perishable. Regular pilot refresher trng by skilled and responsible trng personnel, not simply assessment to the minimum level, is necessary for a healthy aviation industry. This of course is expensive and unfortunately for the traveling public, for your own good the reality is, a flight should cost more than a bus ticket. :ok:

[protectthehornet]

pollution IV

your points are fine. the FAA is trying to mandate quality without paying for it.

if I were king, I would reregulate the airline industry, and in short, demand that airlines do it ''right'' and then I would raise the ticket prices at all airlines to pay for doing it ''right''.

[AirRabbit]

Why do people think that a simple raising of hrs requirements will fix the problem of shoddy acft handling, poor discipline and low tech knowledge ie poor Airmanship. The long held belief that hrs in the logbook = greater proficiency and expertise, is truly misguided and any no. of air crash events involving very experienced crews making fundamental errors will attest to that. The FAA 1500hrs requirement is purely born out of expediency and lack of drive to employ real corrective measures through relevant and focused trng. As with all things, we simply look for the quick fix. Until regulators force all air operators to provide fair and adequate trng to their pilots, accidents due to pilot error (mishandling) will continue to occur.
While I don't disagree with your position, I think it important to recognize that the recent development in the US for the 1500-hour requirement as a prerequisite to qualify to fly in air transportation service was not an FAA-developed requirement ... but rather a requirement levied upon the FAA from the US congress ... where the congress was yielding to political pressures from the public to "do something." The FAA has been readying a new training rule for some time now - even published a version of it last year - but were beaten down by the political considerations of those not wanting to have the airlines address the additional costs (minimal as they may be) of meeting the proposed additional training requirements. Some in the FAA are apparently trying to do the right thing and continue to be plagued by the ever-present "political" responses that inevitably rise to the surface. The training philosophy resident in the FAA's AQP alternative seems to be another of the "yield-to-the-pressures" responses to allow individual airline training programs to be differentially approved, resulting in the regulatory standards being met by virtually no one. It's an interesting concept that seems to go unnoticed by many, if not most, of those who claim to be interested in aviation training.

[justanotherflyer]

MPL, as described in PANS-TRG (Doc 9868) is an ICAO initiative. The USA is a Contracting State, and also a member of the Flight Crew Licensing and Training Panel which developed the concept.

All of that would seem to imply an endorsement, but has the USA anywhere stated its official position on MPL? The 1500 hour proposal would seem to negate it totally.

"To qualify for PANS status, the material should be suitable for application on a worldwide basis. The Council invites Contracting States to publish any differences in their Aeronautical Information Publications when knowledge of the differences is important to the safety of air navigation." (ICAO: "Making an ICAO Standard").

[AirRabbit]

MPL, as described in PANS-TRG (Doc 9868) is an ICAO initiative. The USA is a Contracting State, and also a member of the Flight Crew Licensing and Training Panel which developed the concept.

All of that would seem to imply an endorsement, but has the USA anywhere stated its official position on MPL? The 1500 hour proposal would seem to negate it totally.

"To qualify for PANS status, the material should be suitable for application on a worldwide basis. The Council invites Contracting States to publish any differences in their Aeronautical Information Publications when knowledge of the differences is important to the safety of air navigation." (ICAO: "Making an ICAO Standard").

I agree with you completely – the fact that the US is an ICAO contracting state and a member of the FCL&T panel, would seem to suggest “an endorsement” of the MPL concept. But you are absolutely correct, nowhere (hopefully, yet) has the FAA said anything about MPL; good, bad, or indifferent. I’m told that at least one attempt by Boeing to brief some in the FAA was halted. Very strange. It seems to me that the current attitude is to chase after the AQP concept (now apparently gathering interest and support outside of the US as well as expanding inside the US) where there is no requirement to follow any of the existing rules if only the requester can provide some sort of justification that what they propose will provide “an equivalent level of safety;” whatever that means. I am beginning to fear that every airline in the US will cease training on stalls; even if they are only recoveries from approaches to stall; because, in my opinion, that is better than training on a windshear recovery as a viable substitute - as some are now doing. Almost any pilot recognizes that these two situations are not the same and recovery from each requires opposite responses. Another question ... why would a regulator allow an airline to conduct the type rating certification check ride in a Level 6 (no motion, no visual, basic programming) flight training device? Is that even remotely logical? What else is being eliminated? No one seems to know. What’s worse – no one seems to give a flip! Is anyone watching the store? Does anyone care?