Use of low time pilots slammed

[Archie Archerfield]

This is about Jetstar operations across the Tasman and within Godzone. What about those start ups in the subcontinent and SEA?

Jetstar pilot experience questioned - Totaltravel (http://nz.totaltravel.yahoo.com/news-opinions/news/a/-/9330504/jetstar-pilot-experience-questioned/)

[Molokai]

This article just appeared in yahoo news ;

Budget airline Jetstar has come under fire across the Tasman for letting trainee pilots with as little as 200 hours fly its A320s.
Sydney newspaper Daily Telegraph reported the pilots are flying the passenger services between Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.
Australian and International Pilots Association vice-president Richard Woodward said: "Two hundred hours is less experience than the average P-plater on our roads has."
According to the Telegraph pilots are employed on part-time contracts with a guaranteed annual salary of AUD$57,600 (NZ$78,183) and do not get a pay increase for six years.
They have to pay the airline AUD10,500 (NZ$14,253) a year for on-the-job training. And if they resign before completing six years of service they have to cough up almost as much.
Most cannot legally fly to New Zealand as law here demands commercial pilots have 500 hours in their log books.
The association has long urged a review of Australian pilot training and experience minimums.
The US Government recently passed legislation to ensure all pilots on commercial airliners have a minimum of 1500 hours.

[27/09]

Jetstar - The Cancer of Aviation in the Asia/Pacific area assisted by their northern hemispehere partners Oxford and CTC.

Take a look here, they have no intention of stopping this modern day slavery. Cadets are bonded for six years on a salary well below industry norms with a very large debt for their initial training plus having to pay Jetstar a very significant portion of their meagre salary to pay for their Jetstar training.

NZ's top pilot training company ramps up national recruiting drive | infonews.co.nz New Zealand's local news community (http://www.infonews.co.nz/news.cfm?id=66805)

However I suspect like lambs to the slaughter there will be plenty of uninformed young people who will unwittingly sell their own souls and those of their parents in the pursuit of this folly. In the process dragging the career of an airline pilot down to the level below that of an unskilled worker.

By the way the headline is misleading, the bit about NZ's top pilot training company is a load of :mad:.

[twochai]

However I suspect like lambs to the slaughter there will be plenty of uninformed young people who will unwittingly sell their own souls and those of their parents in the pursuit of this folly. In the process dragging the career of an airline pilot down to the level below that of an unskilled worker

There are many youngsters in other professions who start their careers with much higher debt loads than pilots, e.g. Doctors, particularly specialists. Why the whining from the pilot community??

[27/09]

Twochai,

You miss the point, it not the level of debt that's the big issue here, it's the terms and conditions these guys and girls are being employed under. Terms and conditions that are well below the industry norm, terms and conditions which may severley impact their future career advancement and earning capabilities. Terms and conditions that do not reflect the value of the job.

The large debt only becomes an issue because of the very poor terms and conditions that Jetstar employ the cadets under.

[HundredPercentPlease]

Most doctors have a debt that peaks at around £60k. They are paid well though.

Most new pilots now have a debt around £110k. They are often not even offered a full time job, just a rolling self-employed contractors position.

[27/09]

Two Chai I don't know what industry you you work in however it is obvious that you don't work in the aviation industry otherwise you wouldn't have made the statement you did.

Have you taken a look at some of the threads on here re the UK cadets trained by the likes of CTC and Oxford? Many of these guys and girls are struggling in some cases having to declare bankruptcy. This is where the Jetstar cadet scheme is leading.

[justagigolo77]

Many of these guys and girls are struggling in some cases having to declare bankruptcy. This is where the Jetstar cadet scheme is leading.

I would give full support of laws that would prohibit pilots entering these scams from being able to declare bankruptcy. Allowing bankruptcy when someone takes on this debtload with reckless abandon despite all the information available to them in respect to current conditions, is allowing them an easy way out. Make them pay off that debt even if it is burdon on their lifestyle till the day they die...dont reward stupidity

[captjns]

Anyone holding a gun the heads of those who pay to play or their parents:ugh:?

All they have to do is say "NO":=.

With that being said they'll get exactly what they pay for... exploitation.

[sundownbettertakecar]

SLFs...is it better to travel on an airline with pilots with only 200+ hours or fly on one with fake pilots onboard? No brainer?

[justagigolo77]

SLFs...is it better to travel on an airline with pilots with only 200+ hours or fly on one with fake pilots onboard? No brainer?

Thats the dumbest comparison I have ever heard! BUT, There are 2 answers to that:

1. Why should a consumer ever have to make that choice between 2 evils?
2. I wouldnt fly on either!!

[twochai]

27/09

Two Chai I don't know what industry you you work in however it is obvious that you don't work in the aviation industry otherwise you wouldn't have made the statement you did.

Since you ask, I spent 50 years in the industry until retirement, initially as a pilot (9,000+ hours with self funded training). My medical is still current.

No complaints whatsoever, an entirely satisfying career. Thankfully, I never found myself in a union.

[27/09]

Jutsagigalo77

Allowing bankruptcy when someone takes on this debtload with reckless abandon despite all the information available to them in respect to current conditions, is allowing them an easy way out. I can't help but agree, however I'm not sure they get the full facts until it's too late. It a bit of you don't know what you don't know and the sales pitch from some of the flight schools is very slick and convincing.

I like your answer to the SLF statement.


Twochai

Congratulations on your good health annd your 50 years of satisfaction in the aviation industry. You have been involved during what might be described as the golden years as things have/are changing especially with these cadet scams. From what you have written it would seem that you are out of touch with the current situation in some parts of the world.

[justagigolo77]

I can't help but agree, however I'm not sure they get the full facts until it's too late. It a bit of you don't know what you don't know and the sales pitch from some of the flight schools is very slick and convincing.

With the internet and endless opportunities to meet pilots online and/or at airports etc, I really do not think there is an excuse for lack of facts. Its like me coming to the UK and driving on the right (------>) side of the road because no one held my hand all the way to the left side of the road. There are enough websites and people to ask which side of the road you crazy people drive on. I really do not believe that ignorance is a defence in these scams.

[27/09]

The sales pitch is very convincing and unless you had any suspicions why would you go looking for other info. After all these guys have all the glib answers, there's more in what they infer and don't say than in what they actually say.

It's easy for us to say that you can easily find out. We know where to go and ask, but a lot of these people don't have a clue where to start and the infomation provided by these flight schools is the only info thay have. After all everyone knows that all pilots have a secure job with good perks and earn copious amounts of money. Isn't that right? Ask your non pilot friends? It won't take long to pay back that huge loan.

Yes I know there are some who have rose tinted glasses and will not believe reality but that doesn't apply to everyone.

[320wonder]

personally,

i don't think the issue is with the 200+ hours flying A320... the issue here is the willingness of these pilots accepting the substandard offer.

200+ hours on a right hand seat in a shiny jet is not very uncommon, in fact in a certain airline, you have guys with less than 500hours total time flying on a right hand seat of a Triple Seven, few went to the B744

a guy with 1500 hours on a C172 may be lot better than a young chap with 200 odd hours on a C172, that is when you compare them in a C172.

But when you put both of them in a A320 cockpit, i believe they are some differences between the 2, but how big are the differences? is it that significant?

[captainsuperstorm]

-put yourself in the position of a father. Your son (or your daughter) can now fly an airbus 320 in less than 2 years. Is that not wonderful? wooow!!!!

you can not expect parents to know the rules, T and C,... most parents I know have never flown a plane in their life.

These ponzi shemes(or scam/shemes, call them what you want) are just the carrot to attract more wanabes to "sell" them a MPL that nobody cares except a few crooks like easyjet/CTC,....

who to blame? who set this MPL? yes there is a part of parents' responsibility, but this training should be highly regulated, and not regulated by money only.

In a matter of fact, the MPL is totally unappropriated with the actual crisis as there are more downsides than upsides.(can not fly single pilot a/c,..)


I am surprised to see that in the Stets they have increased their minimum to 1500h, when in europe, they are decreasing the number of hours (70h in a real plane).

How PAX will react when they will learn that the pilot in front of the A319 can not even fly a 2 passengers Piper by himself? Has no flight experience, no navigation experience,..."

MPL="ground, euh,easyjet 333, euh,request permission for euh, standby, euh, OK, euh, permission for push back, euh, Over!":}

[ExSp33db1rd]

Most cannot legally fly to New Zealand as law here demands commercial pilots have 500 hours in their log books.

?????

From the NZ CAA Rule Pt. 61 ( Licences and Ratings )

61.203 Eligibility requirements
To be eligible for a commercial pilot licence, a person must—
.............

(4) have the following minimum general flight time experience as a
pilot comprising specific flight experience that is acceptable to
the Director for the appropriate category of aircraft:
(i) in the case of an aeroplane, 200 hours or, if undertaking a
course of approved training, 150 hours:

[rh200]

ExSp33db1rd

I could be wrong but there's most likely a ATPL rating after the basic commercial. The wording of the above statement (commercial) is sloppy.

[FR8R H8R]

Are we supposed to be shocked by this? Jetscar is far from the only company hiring these 200 wonders. Lifetime bond? Why not. Pay to sit in the seat? Sure.

I WOULD DO ANYTHING TO FLY A SHINY JET. :ugh:

[Water Wings]

From the NZ CAA Rule Pt. 61 ( Licences and Ratings )

Your looking at the wrong rule. The issue relates to 121.511.

Even though JQ keep there aircraft on the Aussie register, under the terms of the reciprocal arrangements between Oz and NZ, when operating these aircraft within NZ, they must comply with NZCAA rules.

[scroogee]

The Part 61 reference is to HOLD a CPL. To operate a large passenger (or freight) aircraft there are further requirements under Part 121.

"Rule brief
The purpose of Part 121 is to prescribe the operating requirements for air operations of aeroplanes that have a passenger seating configuration of more than 30 seats, excluding any required crew member seat, or a payload capacity of more than 3410 kg, carried out by the holder of an Airline Air Operator Certificate issued under Part 119 of the Rules."

121.507 Pilot-in-command experience requirements
Each holder of an air operator certificate shall ensure that each person designated as pilot-in-command of an aeroplane has acquired, prior to commencing the training specified in Subpart I or Subpart M for pilot-in-command, at least—
(1) 1500 hours of flight time as a pilot, including—
(i) 500 hours in the type of operations to which this Part applies; and
(ii) 100 hours of instrument time at least 50 hours of which is acquired in actual flight; and
(2) 100 hours of night-flight time for operations to be conducted by the person at night.
　
121.509 Second-in-command experience
Each holder of an air operator certificate shall ensure that any person designated as second-in-command of an air operation—

(1) is suitably trained and qualified on the aeroplane type; and
(2) is capable, in the event of the pilot-in-command being incapacitated—
(i) of operating the aeroplane safely under the prevailing and anticipated forecast weather conditions; and
(ii) of deputising for the pilot-in-command; and
(iii) of landing the aeroplane at the intended destination or a suitable alternate.

121.511 Pilot experience
The certificate holder shall ensure that each person acting as a pilot, other than as pilot-in-command, of an aeroplane, prior to commencing the training specified in Subpart I or Subpart M—
(1) has acquired at least 500 hours of flight time as a pilot, including at least 100 hours of flight time in air operations; and
(2) has acquired at least 25 hours of night flight experience; and
(3) holds a current instrument rating.

The relevant bit is 121.511, the others for reference and context.

[justanotherflyer]

We keep going around the mulberry bush with this "low hours" question. If we were to read a headline "Scandal As Low Hours Doctors Permitted To Work in Hospitals", we would immediately want to ask, well, where else are new medical graduates going to get their experience? Everyone has to start at zero. We would presume, however, they weren't just let loose by themselves with scalpels, dangerous medicines and complicated medical technology, but would be doing on the the job training under the supervision of consultants, medical trainers and experienced medical and nursing colleagues.

Which is exactly what happens. It's essentially an apprenticeship system, where basic qualifications are the entry ticket to further years of learning by doing, by more study, and by more experience.

Just like the system in many airlines where newly minted, type-rated FOs can learn their trade. Can it be shown by reliable, objective, intellectually sound study that such a methodology, when applied to aviation, is inherently less safe than insisting such candidates have 1500 (or whatever) hours of experience in other non-airline piloting work?

If anyone has knowledge of such a study or similar research, please post it here. Otherwise this is a rather sterile debate, which needlessly stirs public anxieties.

[captainsuperstorm]

no need of a license to fly an airbus!:eek:.
I could teach a kid how to fly a plane(airbus) in 4-5 hours mostly on auto.

so why flight schools should settle for more, when they know it 's possible.
This profession is totally different as skills, maturity, experience don't count anymore...until crash happens!

[Morrisman1]

With a 200 hour co-pilot, when reality differs from procedures or what is ideal then you have two people in the cockpit - a captain and a passenger.

Im sure its more than possible to train someone for a jet without them even been airborne in their life but we don't do that because there is more to flying a plane than procedures. GA experience gives you knowledge you can apply to the jet and will also give the pilots more confidence in their aircraft and what it is really capable of.

When it comes to saving lives (what pilots are there for in the end) then theres no substitute for experience and passengers have every right to demand that both crew up front are fully capable of dealing with an emergency.

As a fully qualified CPL/IR pilot with not many over 200 hours myself I still do not feel that I should be up front of a jet, I simply do not have the experience required. Come back in 6 years and it will be a different story, I will have learnt from the hard slog that is GA and I will be in a much better position to have the responsibility of 100+ lives.

Comparing pilots to doctors should be done correctly. Straight out of med school do they go into the operating room with a brain tumor patient? I highly doubt it. They go do the small and simple jobs of injecting anesthetic and putting stitches in. That is much like GA while the brain surgeon should be your ATPL pilot with 2500+ hours. Id love to see how well these cadets perform single pilot IFR in a GA twin (without glass!), following NDB tracks while being pelted with turbulence and stiff winds. Im convinced that there is a high possibility that the flight wouldn't end very well.

[Hobo]

jaf - quite. :ok:

[haughtney1]

All the lofty ideals about employing guys with a bit more experience and decision making ability misses the point.
Jetstar have made a conscious decision that a 200-250 cadet is an acceptable solution to crewing their a/c.
This has nothing to do with anything else other than cost, and until they are compelled too, nothing is going to change.

[kriskross]

Surely, we are discussing two separate questions here - the fact of 200 hour cadets in the right hand seat, and the exploitation of low hour pilots who have to pay for everything upfront and spend many formative flying years living in penury.

The low hour commercial pilot has existed for many years - viz BA took cadets from its Hamble College for many years till it found a more cost effective way, by taking more experienced ( total hour pilots ) from other sources. These pilots were brought in on the understanding that they were being 'indoctrinated' in the full BA ethos, for an eventual managerial position.
The current low hour pilot, as employed by RYR, EZY, in the UK and many Companies worldwide, is that they now have to take secured loans (since the financial crisis, the non-secured option does not exist) probably secured on their parents' guarantee, house etc. Then are employed on a temporary contract for some indeterminate time, with barely enough spare cash to live on - I remember one of our cadets being pleased that they had an extra flight because they could fill up their car with fuel!

Wasn't the Colgan crash partly attributable to the F.O. commuting because she couldn't afford to live at her base, and was sleeping in the crewroom and her car?

The cadet problem does not really exist from flight safety PROVIDED the training and supervision is GOOD - experienced Captains to take the load, trainers or otherwise, and not newly promoted 3000 hour captains still learning their new trade.

The problem comes from the appalling terms and conditions these young people are forced to endure to satisfy the ever cost cutting management - who have discovered that some people would do anything to fly.

I was like that 50 years ago, but I came up through a system where experience was gained BEFORE moving onto the next stage, you were paid properly under a standard contract while you were doing this and the Company paid for type ratings etc

Sadly, these days are past, it took the Colgan crash to awake the FAA, the trouble is that it may take a similar occurance in other parts of the world to wake up other regulatory bodies.

I loved my career and wouldn't have changed anything,but I was looked after properly, and yes I did have the'golden years, though may not have thought so a the time. However, I advised both my kids not to go into aviation, and feel for these incredibly keen young lads and lasses who have to endure the current terms and conditions.

[27/09]

Haughtney

Correct it all comes down to money, how little Jetstar are paying these guys.

They get away with it by devious means, you just have to look at the ducking and diving that has been going on recently with the employment of the first group of cadets to avoid paying them a fair wage. What also helps them get away with it is the ignorance and possibly greed on the part of the cadets.

justanotherflyer

You muddy the waters with your comparison. Firstly your comparison with Doctors is not really valid as has already been pointed out. Perhaps if you compared the costs of training you might be closer to the mark. Do Doctors pay the hospitals for their on the job training? I think not, but the pilots are paying Jetstar for their training.

The real issue here as I mentioned above is how these guys and girls are being employed and what they are getting as a real take home pay and what the various segments of their training costs.

[27/09]

kriskross

Spot On, excellent post :ok::ok::ok:

[Airbrake]

What ever your profession is you should not try to run before you can walk. You have to serve your apprenticeship in order to gain experience and progress as experience increases. It is a good way to gain airmanship and it's good for developing handling skills.

The short cut route to the flight deck of a medium size Boeing/Airbus does not come without a cost. Whilst many of these low hour pilots may be perfectly good at operating the auto pilot and passing a type rating course in the sterile operating environment of a simulator, real life experience as a line pilot can be markedly different and unforgiving and can quickly catch out the inexperienced.

Also, many of these cadet schemes have been developed because they are cheap labor for the airline. Get a cadet up to his eye balls in debt, pay him a pittance, or indeed pay them nothing for 6-8 months and you have a flight deck where you are only paying one wage to the Captain.

Just remember "safety first" (unless it means we have to pay for experience). Lets not fool ourselves into thinking that these schemes were introduced as a favour to help new pilots jump a few steps on their career ladder, they are here for airlines to save money and they do this by cutting back experience levels, and turn their backs on the nightmare personal circumstances that many of these cadets have walked into.

[ReverseFlight]

There is a big difference flying GA and a big jet.

In GA, you are basically flying on your skills.

In a big jet, you are generally flying a procedure.

I can't think you can compare the two on the basis of hours alone.

[Capot]

It's the beancounters at work, driven by the reduced revenues per flight hour and per seat-km which in turn drive the growth in air travel.....etc etc.

If I recall correctly. in my airline in the 70's we trained new FO's in the RH seat of the twin-jets straight out of flight school with a CPL and very few hours, but with a 3rd pilot with the minimum requirement of 1500 hours in the jump seat, until the new FO had got to 1500 AND was assessed as satisfactory.

If they performed badly they were moved to the turbo-prop fleet to go back to basics until they were up to jet standard. (Peace, Oh Turbo-prop Pilots, I know what you mean, but that's how it was.)

The cost was horrendous, of course, but the passengers had a safer ride. And that's what they paid for in tbose days. Now, of course, many passengers pay much less and get what they pay for. Some pay a hell of a lot (Business, anyone?) and do not get what they pay for apart from a big seat and, if they're lucky, nicer service.

[Private jet]

Those who pooh pooh the lack of experience of new airline first officers, and the possible consequences, are somewhat like the green lobby in that they are very good at pointing out the problems but are not forthcoming with solutions. As previously pointed out, this situation is nothing new. BA had hundreds of cadet pilots, straight out of Prestwick or Hamble in the 70's/80's/90's with 200 odd hours going straight on to big jets. It worked well in the main, and still does, the key however is ensuring good training and oversight. For example trainers must actually train the new people, rather than just "supervise" them. Everybody has to start with low experience. What are the "must have experience" people saying should happen? Every new airline pilot should have 1500 hrs plodding round in Cessnas or flying night freight in crappy recalcitrant turboprops or flying in/out of dirt strips in sh*thole parts of the world? Yes i'm sure its all character building stuff but i'm not convinced that it brings a great deal of RELEVENT experience to flying an A320 or whatever. The way the size of the airline industry has mushroomed over the last dozen or so years does not make this a practical career progression path for everyone anymore, anyway it never was and it certainly can't be now.
The REAL problem is the fact that people are effectively whoring themselves to do the job and unfortunately there is very little that can realistically be done about it. You cant force airlines to up salaries to compensate for big training debts. Things will only improve if people stop wanting to become pilots and the law of supply and demand kicks in. I keep seeing the comparison with doctors on here, there is no comparison because they do not work within such a commercially competative environment.

[macdo]

Heard following from several training capts. and other line capts over past 4 or five years.

"Cadets? Usually sharp cookies, but it all fall apart when things go wrong, because they can only hang their hat on what they have seen, which is not much"

This is not disrespectful to cadets, its purely lack of experience.

There are a couple of comments above about 200hr pilots and the major airlines, its true BA, for example, have done ab initio for years, but (big but) with very close scrutiny of the cadets progress and performance. These days its 40 sectors and off you go laddy! (or lassie!!)

[Airbrake]

Private Jet, I am not just talking about relevant experience we are talking about any experience at all.

I am not making this up but in the last few weeks I flew with an FO who said the fuel figures did not add up and thought we may have a leak. After looking at the situation it became obvious that this person had gone all the way through line training and had spent several weeks on the line not realising that we got the fuel uplift in litres and not Kgs and the discrepancy was a factor of 0.8!

On another occasion the ACARS packed up and the cadet had no idea how to get weather never mind where to find the frequencies. I sure we can all give examples like this, but nobody can refute that experience shows and having some experience before jumping into a shiny jet significantly lowers the chances of a screw up.

[Checkboard]

There is nothing wrong with a 200 hour cadet in the right hand seat - if they are with a good Captain in the left hand seat.

As said - in many areas of the world, small GA is simply not able to supply the amount of airline pilots required, and everyone has to start somewhere.

What is needed is stronger legislation to make sure the guy in the left seat has sufficient experience - a better minimum hour requirement for command, and for command of a jet aircraft to be a licence issue rather than a company-decided job description. :cool:

[SmilingKnifed]

I can only echo, many of the points raised here regarding quality of training and add my own opinion regarding quality of the candidate.

As mentioned, companies such as BA have a history of employing 200 hours guys and gals in the right hand seat, having been involved in their selection and training from day 1, ensuring the applicants who nowadays would slip the net (and there are plenty with more cash than brains currently) were mostly weeded out before starting the course, or even during a very demanding couple of years of training. Now if you have the money and the time to repeat tests and meet a minimum standard, you're good to go.

It's also worth noting that there was more training carried out online and in sims previously, rather than turning up, getting the LOFT and V1 cut done and going back to the line no brighter or more improved than when you started.

I can't comment on the GA background as I believe it's horses for courses. I struggled like crazy during my military flying training, where my partner in a Jetstream crew solo (combined experience, 180 hrs flying and 39 years) went on to become a C17 trainer. I meantime went to gain more experience in GA before feeling good enough to fly for an airline. The experience came in handy when dealing with a pilot incap within 10 sectors of finishing line training!

[ExSp33db1rd]

On another occasion the ACARS packed up and the cadet had no idea how to get weather never mind where to find the frequencies.

I'm not sure that comparing the relevant difficulties of flying GA, or Turbo-prop or the big jets, is necessarily the issue, sure some hardware is more difficult to handle than others, right now I'm finding getting to grips with flying a Cessna 182 VFR far more demanding than operating a 747 World Wide.

Sure, age is a factor too in my case, but my multi-thousand hours were largely accrued cruising at 30,000 ft with hot and cold running stewardesses, i.e. it's Horses for Courses, and assuming that one has the aptitude to become a pilot in the first place, and surely that is sussed out fairly early on, then I assume that handling the different hardware can be taught reasonably quickly, after all the RAF moved to ab inito jet training, with no prop. handling at all, but it is the whole attitude and reliance on electronic gadgets that worries me - what is going to happen when they fail ?

I recall two 'incidents', one where I had let the S/O sit in my seat whilst I had my meal at the back of the flight deck, and there was an INS ( remember that ? pre-FMS and GPS ! ) problem that the F/O had actually created - it later transpired, and was trying to deal with, and so I initially told the S/O to disconnect the auto-pilot tracking mode and manually steer the aircraft to the next waypoint. He said he didn't know the track, I told him to get it off the ( INS ) flight log, he said that it was in degrees "True", I told him to apply the variation, he said he didn't know it, I told him to get it off the chart, he said he didn't have a chart out. From past experience I came up with an approx. Variaion to apply to his True heading and told him to steer that, which at least put us flying in approximately the right direction.

Subsequently I told him that I wasn't cross that they had both screwed up handling the INS, it was in those days a new toy to us, but that he was supposed to be a pilot and he hadn't the faintest idea of where he was or where he was going, he just relied on winking lights and when they failed he was stuffed.

On another occasion another INS issue leaving Singapore for Australia, and in the immediate "what the :mad: it doing now?" phase, the trainee in the right hand seat tried to make me steer North West ( think about it ). Again I wasn't upset at the mishandling of the electronics, but the total lack of situation awareness.

I'm afraid, very afraid.

[justanotherflyer]

27/09

You make very worthwhile points.

But I'm merely addressing the forum topic - "Use of Low Time Pilots Slammed".

Yours and others' additional concerns about terms and conditions, exploitation, debt, professional development, etc are perfectly valid. However I don't believe that "low time" pilots per se represent a threat to public safety, irrespective of the excellence of their pre- and post-licence training regime.

That is one story which is being fed to the public.

[justagigolo77]

Just remember "safety first" (unless it means we have to pay for experience). Lets not fool ourselves into thinking that these schemes were introduced as a favour to help new pilots jump a few steps on their career ladder, they are here for airlines to save money and they do this by cutting back experience levels, and turn their backs on the nightmare personal circumstances that many of these cadets have walked into.

Very well said!:ok:

As said - in many areas of the world, small GA is simply not able to supply the amount of airline pilots required, and everyone has to start somewhere.

What is needed is stronger legislation to make sure the guy in the left seat has sufficient experience - a better minimum hour requirement for command, and for command of a jet aircraft to be a licence issue rather than a company-decided job description.

Great, so now we are suggesting to slow the progression of experienced pilots to the left seat as we feel the need to allow every 200hr wonder into the right seat of a big shiny jet, because they most certainly deserve it. "Barking up the wrong tree". Open your eyes dude, you are the blind leading the blind! I sure hope you are not in a position to offer advice directly to aspiring pilots or airlines.

[Private jet]

I'm certainly not advocating the system as it stands. The QUALITY of the training that new people receive is the key, not hours and hours of experience where the pilot is expected to "teach himself". People need to be trained, shown how to do things and situations EXPLAINED. Its all so well and good Captains saying "He/she couldnt do this, didnt know how to do that on the line" etc etc. Well how about showing them? If you do not consider that to be part of your job then i'm afraid that you have been part of the problem and not part of the solution. It also starkly illustrates how out of date and anachronistic the basic CPL & IR training is, and how "basic" the type courses are in order to minimize cost. I started flying a jet with relatively low tt, but i had an understanding captain who viewed it as part of his job to impart practical knowledge and skills to me. Nowadays i do the same for those who are new. Its the master/apprentice thing, it works far better than the "learn from your own mistakes" dogma. Flying is not some sort of "black art" although i suspect many experienced pilots like to portray it that way because it makes them look good. Yes, experience is important but it is experience on type, in a particular flying environment that is most valuable, not experience just for the sake of it. Simply accumulating hours is not the answer, proper, thorough, ongoing, training is, and on the line in real world conditions the captain is often too lazy to provide it.

[Private jet]

p.s if you think 200hr first officers are a worry, i've come across pilots with thousands of hours who cant do the job properly. They're the ones i really worry about!

[justagigolo77]

Time on type of a 320/737 is really more important than having FLYING skills? In 200hrs flying a 320/737, how much will a 250hr superhero hand fly the airplane? In the vicinity of a major airport? If said 250hr pilot had a stick shaker close to ground in IMC and icing conditions would you feel comfortable of the outcome? This is the type of experience you can ONLY get by living it and honing your skills in a progressive manner!

p.s if you think 200hr first officers are a worry, i've come across pilots with thousands of hours who cant do the job properly. They're the ones i really worry about!

Former "Cadets" no doubt...in a vicious circle! Do it right from the start!

[Private jet]

Justagigolo,
No. one was an ex RAF fast jet pilot. Another was an ex instructor with 2000 hrs on light aircraft. Go figure.....

Also, the real skill in aviation is not getting out of dangerous situations, its not getting into them in the first place.

[cosmo kramer]

Comparing pilots to doctors should be done correctly. Straight out of med school do they go into the operating room with a brain tumor patient? I highly doubt it. They go do the small and simple jobs of injecting anesthetic and putting stitches in. That is much like GA while the brain surgeon should be your ATPL pilot with 2500+ hours.
Haha - that's a nice joke. Comparing Airline flying to brain surgery. :hmm:
You will be in for a surprise and your beliefs will be shattered when you find out that many 10.000+ hour captain doesn't have the first clue what they are doing.

This industry is rottening with increased automation - all in the name of safety. Airbus first (and Boeing following along) prefer that you don't touch the controls, look at their respective training material. Like a doctor watching watching a computer doing the operation.

The advice for the future passengers? Pray the automatics works or take the train. At least, that's what I do every time I have to proceed, pray (and I feel especially relieved when I see it's an Airbus being the most automated).

Personally, I refuse to go along and the day there is a restriction on me handflying I will first find another job, then another branch (business jets perhaps?) and in the end another career.

[cosmo kramer]

Didn't read your posts before replying PJ, but spot on.

"engage the autopilot! autopilot! autop.." End of recording.
:(

[justagigolo77]

Also, the real skill in aviation is not getting out of dangerous situations, its not getting into them in the first place.

This is the statement of a true idealist, but the realist in me says that some situations cannot be avoided and will a 250hr pilot know which ones can and cannot be avoided, and how to get out of them? For example, you folks get fog or freezing rain in London once in a while correct? So how many cadets will have the opportunity to hand fly a landing at Heathrow in fog or freezing rain as an F/O? Fast forward a few years and said cadet is now upgraded to captain, same rules apply in that the F/O is not going to be flying that approach, so now what? Still feel safe? Realist says, not me!!

[cosmo kramer]

justagigolo, children of the magenta line?
Unfortunately look what happens when children listens to Eminem or other crap. Suddenly it's mainstream and the parents too.

Skill is something that needs to be maintained. Unfortunately there are a lot of pilots with thousands of hours that have become "parents of the magenta line children". Maybe even some of those who knew the jazz before.

The most dangerous one is the one that lost his basic skills and yet haven't learnt the computer yet. What's it doing now (what I am I doing now..

[Private jet]

Justagigolo,

I've never said that basic manual flying skills are not important, of course they are, but theres a lot more to it than that. To be proficient at operating an airliner, or bizjet for that matter, you have to operate an airliner or bizjet and you need to be trained properly to do it. (SOP's, automation, manual flying, emergencies, bad weather....whatever). IF there is a proper robust and ongoing culture of training then a 250hr pilot will cope. I'm not saying the present training framework and style is good enough, but if you think the ONLY safe route to flying an airliner or any high performance aircraft is to serve "time" on piston GA machines then i'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

[GlueBall]

Emphasis on line training is focused on automatics and virtually zero on manual flying. The little amount of manual handling new hires receive is limited to the simulator.

Over and over I see the new generation of automatons stumped when the automatics are slow to respond, or not following the programmed inputs. Meanwhile, the airplane digresses from the flight path while the copilot attempts to correct the automation anomaly with more automation inputs.

Pervasive aversion, or fear, of disconnecting the automatics and hand flying the airplane to re-establish control of attitude and correct flight path. :{

[cessnapete]

For many years BEA/ BA recruited Hamble/ Oxford/Perth trained cadet pilots who joined the 737/757/767A320 fleets with 250 odd hours on shorthaul routes.
Proper initial supervision and rostered with experienced Capts for six months ,no problems.
It's the TRAINING that counts not the hours. The 1500hour FAA new limit is meaningless without good inital selection and tuition.
And, from my many years experience in BA, for the ''what if the Capt dies/engine out/ IFR to limits approach brigade'', they would still cope!!

ExSp33db1rd

I did most of my time on BOAC/BA Long haul and in the situation you describe you would have had an experienced F/O along as well, what was he doing!?. I dont recognise the caliber of your S/O with the people I flew with, and 250 hour cadets were not rostered on a two pilot 707/VC10, only on three crew sectors.

[macdo]

Comments above re. ' all will be well if 200hr f/o rostered with experienced Capt.'.
All will be better, thats it.
A fairly recent 'incident' (AAIB report available) proved that Capt. (TRE) was unable to intervene and save the day when cadet failed to flare in AIRBUS FBW aircraft. Went to the sim to re-create the scenario and nobody that tried could intervene in time due to the inability of the system to cope with dual inputs.
On older types it would be OK.

[Piltdown Man]

You can teach most people to fly a 320/737 or similar when they have just passed out of a 200 hr CPL course. To date, the majority 200 hour pilots that I've flown with are pretty (very) reasonable pilots but are often, not surprisingly, poor operators. That only really comes with experience. So if I were to kick the bucket in flight, they would safely land somewhere but might choose an airport without a towbar and still park in a push back stand. Although inconvenient to the company it would be safe. Quite legitimately they could put command time in their logbook but most importantly, the flight would have a "safe" conclusion.

To me what is really worrying are the terms and conditions of these 200 hour guys. How are they living? Are they sleeping in tents or the back of their cars? Do they have second jobs to help with their loan repayments? These are things that should really worry the SLF. Because the guy to turns up unfit for work, he is a danger to everyone around. And even worse are the morals of their senior colleagues who allow this to happen. They are the real scumbags! And I've seen it myself. I've personally experienced the senior guys, in return for an additional increments, voting for 2nd and 3rd rate terms for their junior colleagues.

[blind pew]

CESSNAPETE
For many years BEA/ BA recruited Hamble/ Oxford/Perth trained cadet pilots who joined the 737/757/767A320 fleets with 250 odd hours on shorthaul routes.
Proper initial supervision and rostered with experienced Capts for six months ,no problems.
It's the TRAINING that counts not the hours. The 1500hour FAA new limit is meaningless without good inital selection and tuition.
And, from my many years experience in BA, for the ''what if the Capt dies/engine out/ IFR to limits approach brigade'', they would still cope!!

How right and wrong you are!

Hamble trained around 10% of the numbers the forces were training in the 60s - but one needed much higher education qualifications.

Then they chopped 33% to get an even higher standard! (although the last CFI denies that).

Britain's worst aviation disaster killed 118, my best friend was in the RHS.

Our training was so bad that many captains tried to off load us but were blackmailed to take us along - often as long as we didn't touch anything.

If we were allowed to attempt to land the beast then it was only at Heathrow with another pair of hands fighting us.

Experienced captains! yes certainly had experience on Lancs but some couldn't fly the Trident themselves.

One of the management instructors did most of his Tristar conversion with the auto pilot plugged in.

Wasn't the only total loss with experienced Captain and inexperienced FO.

The salaries were such that it took 6 years to get the same dough as the rest of the industry was paying after one year.

My parents fortunately subsidized me for my time at Hamble and for the next four years.

I also restored cars on the side whilst others became gardeners/builders/car dealers and one bought and sold clocks!.

Still we didn't need to sell our bodies as some others in the company did!

So no change there in 40 years then! ( not BA but the industry!)

[John21UK]

There's nothing wrong with an 150/200hr f/o. And there's always someone with experience in the left had seat.

The whole low pay/pay to fly scheme is at fault. It should be banned.

[Rananim]

The whole industry has changed in 30 short years.There are no aviators left,just sytemoperators with a big mortgage,thousands of automated hours,no union,and no integrity.Companies like CTC and airlines like easyjet/ryanair thrive nicely on it.Many factors are involved;deregulation, low-cost,fuel prices,CRM,advanced automated cockpits,pilots with civilian over military backgrounds etc.Pilots used to come almost exclusively from the military where training is always excellent and honor and integrity valued.You wont be able to push a military guy around in the same way that you can with a 22 year old kid out of college.
Clearly 200 hours is insufficient to operate as a competent co-pilot but keep telling yourself that theyre very keen and quick-learners and you'll start to believe that everything is okay.Just keep the automatics engaged and pray they work.You used to start at the bottom and work your way up.The "I paid 50k,I want it now" generation is running the asylum and the passengers are probably oblivious so why not?Anyhow,maybe you only need 200 hours to fly an Airbus.I heard they fly by themselves.
I wouldnt be a pilot again today if they paid me a small fortune.

[RAT 5]

Let's look further ahead; but first a little sideways. As has been said a well trained 200hr cadet can do a satisfactory job of line flying a B737. I've checked them on LST and flown with them on the line. Excellent trained monkeys. The SOP's are so solid & rigid that a blind trained monkey, if following them, will do a satisfactiry job; assuming a 'nothing goes untoward type of day'.
This trained monkey factory then churns out 3000hr captains, who then teach (perhaps) more new cadet monkeys in their daily line flying. The on the job learning curve of which many speak is very diluted. Thus it is not surprising to hear of some astonishing actions by said 3000hr captains from said trained monkey factory. They first think what the book says they should do, if the scenario is written down, pause for thought because they can't quite remember it too accurately, and thus what should have been done sooner rather than later happens a few moments later, should the ensueing confusion about what the book says have been resolved. Airmanship is not their first instinct. Thus some days they are very reactive not proactive. It is this that concerns me; less then 4000hrs total in the flightdeck, with sometimes the slightly short sighted leading the blind. The art of multi tasking, processing a multitude of snipets of info and then acting in good timely manner is not as strong a trait as it was. One cause is the increased reliability of the equipment, another might be the rigid SOP's. LNAV & VNAV, auto-throttle etc have made it a much more relaxing job than before, but the alert airman is still necessary. Sadly I wonder if they are being produced any more to the level required.

[cessnapete]

Glad I joined BOAC, all we heard about BEA was true then!!!

[Microburst2002]

Low hour cadets are OK if they are a need because of lack of experienced pilots and/or the airline has a size that allows it to properly train young pilots and shape them according to their ideal of a pilot, and if they are considered as an important asset of the airline, the future captains which the airline will put in charge of millions of dollars in equipment filled with passengers.

Low hour cadets are not OK if they are hired instead of the experienced ones available in the market because it is cheaper and there are plenty of desperate low houred pilots to get a job no matter how ****ty the T&Cs are, and for this airline pilots are an annoyance and a cost which is just like any other equipment installed in the airplane.

There should be some kind of regulation that restricts the way line training is carried out, and when can be carried out. Some limit to the percentage of low houred cadets that can be rostered during a given period, for instance.

[sundownbettertakecar]

Haha - that's a nice joke. Comparing Airline flying to brain surgery. :hmm:
You will be in for a surprise and your beliefs will be shattered when you find out that many 10.000+ hour captain doesn't have the first clue what they are doing.

This industry is rottening with increased automation - all in the name of safety. Airbus first (and Boeing following along) prefer that you don't touch the controls, look at their respective training material. Like a doctor watching watching a computer doing the operation.


The reason why a 10000hour oldie have no clue is probably that he is an old dinasaour inanely proud of his " manual handling skills ' and never properly learn to interphase with the automatics! You will have people moaning about the increasing lack of manual flying skills but don't that tell you that they are using that to mask their lack of skills at manipulating the automatics to properly do the job? Come on people, the automatics are here to stay and you better get on top of your game with using them properly!

[blind pew]

Cessna pete
yup
fraid so

BEA was so bad that not only were there BOAC guys who wouldn't fly with us but some of our own guys would look up the crew and decide not to fly.

Eight aircraft destroyed in my six years.

Had 18 months on the duck and with it's looming retirement and being sent back to the flat earth society so I chucked it in - like many others.

Huge disappointment after Hamble but the management and trainers were members of the same "club" - which you would know what I mean.

The instructors at Hamble were mainly fighter pilots - those in BEA bomber pilots. The best in the RAF went onto fighters, the bomber pilots were little more than Kamikaze pilots and it was the survivors (more luck than judgement) that ended up running BEA.

Had a mate who flew V bombers - he was in the Red Arrows and because of the prodigious accident rate the RAF sent his whole group onto the Vulcan.
Said that he didn't come across anyone any good.

I only refused to fly with one guy in my career - he had been posted down from Glasgow as most of the FOs had refused to fly with him - humiliated and forced to fly with him but was expected to speak only when I was spoken to.

That wasn't unique to BEA as you no doubt know with regard to a fleet chief who was later forced to resign by a posse of first officiers.

My next airline had a low cost subsidiary - one of the guys on my command course expressed a lack of confidence in their abilities - he was given the option of resigning or following the party line.

Got his command and then the subsidiary lost two aircraft from pilot error!

In my view the industry needs aviation authorities who are distinctly separated from the pressures of the industry and politics.

NOT FORGETTING WE NEED TO GET RID OF CENSORSHIP AND THE LIBEL LAWS.

[VFD]

So if an accident happens with a XXXhr F/O then we have now eliminated "pilot error" as a cause. Since the airline has chosen the course of training the pilots how to fly since they have little experience rather than how to operate aircraft type now there is the can of worms that the airline has now put itself legally into.
Now the the airline has chosen to accept that there will only be "training errors" since they are providing most all the training.
This might get interesting somewhere down the road.

[#1AHRS]

And those of us in-between. After 18000 hours including GA, bush, corporate, law enforcement, qualified LVP, FAA, JAR and NZ ATPL'S, I'm still flying, still capable of being trained, am passing my checks, and still getting paid. I don't consider myself the ace of the base but rather the middle of the road. Living proof that old farts can operate modern technology and still do a raw data approach.

Changes? Yup over the past 30 odd years, things have changed dramatically, some good, some bad.

The good bits being the advances in machine and operational technology that we now have. And you can't deny that it has allowed less experienced people to easily join the airline industry. And that isn't all that bad either, though it has allowed the entry pilot (those still "wowed" by it all) into the airline cockpit, rather than the Cessna 210 cockpit.

However what is bad, is that airline T's and C's have been whittled down below what I believe is an acceptable level. The money just isn't there anymore unless you want to work yourself into an early grave in some obscure part of the world. Hence the reason why I shifted from bus driver to limo driver.

As I see it, aggressive whippersnapper (writing their CV's) accounting coupled with predictably unfocused and (looking after the Pauani beach home) self indulgent unions have allowed the airline conditions to be whittled away.

The wannabes have always been there, willing to fly for B & B and in the past they never had any real sort of representation.
They are now in the airline cockpits so perhaps we now have an opportunity to educate them about preserving the future of their profession.

[twochai]

If you want a really good fright along the lines of what's being talked about, take a look at this 'incident':

Incident: Finncomm AT72 near Helsinki on Jul 5th 2010, suspected fuel leak due to fuel mismanagement (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=42de4ff3/0000&opt=0)

[Mikehotel152]

I had 250 hours when I started in the industry and spent 2 months as cadet. I passed an initial line check. I then spent a year flying around Europe effectively learning on the job. Yes, of course, I was 'carried' by a few Captains. It must be tough flying with someone who you don't feel you can fully trust - with good reason in many cases.

Some Captains wanted to impart a little bit of their airmanship on me and I eagerly lapped up their advice. Sadly, most Captains clearly just want to get the job done and go home to their wives or mistresses. They couldn't be bothered to talk flying. I include line training captains in this category even though you would have thought that they would been keen to offer unofficial guidance. But no; they just want a quiet life. For example, a request to hand fly would be granted but with such trepidation and obvious discomfort that the request would not be repeated.

1000 hours later I am still accutely aware of my inexperience but sadly I also realise that only I care about my airmanship improving. So long as I follow my SOPs my airline doesn't care. So long as I do it his way, don't embarrass him with better landings or cause him to have to file a CSR, my Captain doesn't care much either. There are exceptions to this rule and I have flown with some excellent pilots whom I seek to emulate.

We need to face the fact that almost all entrants to the industry these days are taken on as inexperienced cadets so it's simply pointless for experienced pilots to sit there complaining and dreaming of the good old days where experience was gained in rickety old cessnas, piston twins and the like.

If you guys want the industry to be safer and not populated by 3000 hours Captains who only know their procedures and have little sense of airmanship, please help the inexperienced pilots by offering encouragement and advice rather than incessant criticism. While you're at it, lobby your airline to actively encourage hand flying, amongst other things.

As an aside, I have to smile at the tone of this thread. I am very honest and modest about my abilities and it amuses me that Captains seem to gloss over the fact that they too make mistakes and thousands of hours do not guarantee a smooth ride (or landing :rolleyes:), it's just that FOs are a little more circumspect in choosing what to bring to a Sky God's attention. :p ;)

[ExSp33db1rd]

cessnapete

..........I dont recognise the caliber of your S/O ...........

'twas a qualified P3/Nav. unrecognised by the majority of present generation of PPrUne readers I guess - i.e. wot's a Nav ? - I was generalising, details are boring but sent to you in a PM. thanks.

[Clandestino]

the multi engine part is now flown on a citation, used to be on a Piper Cheyenne.I am jolly glad that sense somehow managed to prevail. I visited your company's training centre at the time Cheyennes were phased out in favour of Senecas, as more cost-effective training solution. Everyone around predicted that savings by not flying fast, pressurized and fairly complex aeroplane during training will be more than offset by additional hours that will be needed during type rating course. Fact that you're now using citations seems to justify the predictions. Your company's bottom line should serve as a good lesson to beancounters who never progressed past the "cut the costs!" stage, yet I suspect it won't.

Some Captains wanted to impart a little bit of their airmanship on me and I eagerly lapped up their advice. Sadly, most Captains clearly just want to get the job done and go home to their wives or mistresses.Their demoralization certainly couldn't be explained by them being on different contracts, could it? :hmm:

1000 hours later I am still accutely aware of my inexperience but sadly I also realise that only I care about my airmanship improving. So long as I follow my SOPs my airline doesn't care.
Very sad but hardly surprising if one's to consider which airline you refer to. Do you work for that airline or you just sell it your services as NG F/O?

help the inexperienced pilots by offering encouragement and advice rather than incessant criticismThese days I certainly encourage young & inexperienced wannabees not to start training towards ATPL at all! Once they pile up the debt, they're on slippery slope and nothing I say can reach them; they have to find work promptly to appease their lenders and are unlikely to be very picky or scrupulous when opportunity for flying job arises.

And then some of them find themselves in my cockpit and then I talk in positively encouraging way of many things: whether we'll fall off the sky if retract flaps at Vfe-5 kt while being banked 25°, which side it's better to take when avoiding CBs; downwind or upwind, whether TCAS RA really take precedence over ATC instructions, are we able to take taxyway labelled "MAX WINGSPAN 36M" and all other neat stuff that my ground school instructors insisted I should be very familiar with before I was even allowed to look at the big & mighty ATR-42, let alone fly it.

Are my F/Os supposed to know all that - sure they do, it's a law! Somehow it seems that acing the multiple choice exams after going through CBT doesn't always translate in remembering the lesson well enough to apply it in the cockpit.

[Cosmo Imperius]

Come on, I have trained hundreds of 200 hour cadets and put them on line on the RHS where they have done very well. Before I release one as functional I put them through a rigorous regime of handling the aircraft to a safe landing in case if the captain is incapacitated. The exercise is carried out rigorously in the sim and in line OE training as well.

The other pilots I have trained came from GA and military backgrounds who had quite a bit of experience. These come off a little better in decision making as they do have the experience but as far as operational expertise is concerned the 200 hour cadets performed just as well as the 3000-4000 hour experienced guys if not better. The cadets start with a clean slate without bad habits picked up in military or GA or bush flying. They generally do well in all operational aspects of airline flying; the important thing is that the airline must put in a rigorous and comprehensive training programme covering all bases giving good emphasis to decision making which normally a low hour pilot have difficulty.

[zeddb]

pilots with civilian over military backgrounds etc.Pilots used to come almost exclusively from the military where training is always excellent and honor and integrity valued.You wont be able to push a military guy around in the same way that you can with a 22 year old kid out of college.Sorry mate but I'm just not buying that. Firstly, there are far fewer pilots coming out of the military these days.

Secondly, I suffered for many years in an airline where all the instructors were former fast jet pilots and looked upon anyone from a civilian background as lower than whale sh*t. Even having been in the forces but flying transports marked one as somehow lacking the right stuff and in the most extreme case, having been a fast jet pilot but on the "wrong" type or even from the "wrong" squadron.


Debriefs were normally a standard bollocking followed by a nice reunion for the trainer and Captain, subject to the conditions above. The chances of progression were tempered by the mission statement from the training staff that they were there to "protect" the LHS from the "wrong sort" i.e anyone from a different background to them.

I have no problem with ex mil types, the line guys were generally great and I enjoyed swapping "war stories". The training cabal were a different story. Only after bowing to the inevitable and leaving did I realise how awful it had been.

Thirdly, the idea that civilians are somehow without "honour and integrity" is as insulting as it is wrong. How many junior officers are prepared to argue with a general? Most of my colleagues, whatever their age will not sit fat dumb and happy whilst a senior pilot makes a total balls of it.

On the question of pay to fly and the decline in T & C's, I am in total agreement. I am lucky enough to now fly for a decent operator but I sat at home for over a year after being laid off unable to find employment despite 15 years of experience on jets due to the cancer of PTF.

[Chuck Canuck]

Cosmo Imperius, I certainly agree with you. A 200 hour bona fide cadet from a good recognised flying academy will make a fine candidate to train well. From the GA, flying clubs or even military there is a very great chance of faked hours THESE DAYS. Will agree with you that many experienced GA types have better decision making capabilities due to their " experience " but not all the decisions they make are correct. With the load of bad habits picked up, some of their decisions can be fairly dodgy and dubious. A low hour cadet flying by the book and sticking strictly to SOPs may not make " brilliant " decisions but at least they will be operationally sound and legal!

[Sky Slug]

As someone who was hired into the right seat of a CRJ with 360 hours, I have very conflicting opinions on the "use of low time pilots." I think one has to evaluate the source of a person's training.

I went through a major university aviation program to learn to fly. It certainly wasn't the military, but the faculty and instructors were rather strict and there were academic and training standards to uphold. By the time I graduated, I was confident in my abilities and knowledge, and had little problem adapting to the jet with the help of some great CAs.

We have a problem, particularly in Florida, where some flight schools have essentially become pilot mills. It's not in the flight school's financial interest to ensure mastery of a particular subject, they just want to make sure the student can pass the check ride. They don't want those dollars heading to their competitor on the other side of the airport because training is taking too long.

What is the 1500 hour requirement going to do about that? I'm not sure that instructing for 1200 hours on a Cessna 172 really does that much for experience, aside from keeping the poor soul in poverty for another couple years.

[Machete Confetti]

"Hours" is a very blunt instrument for assessing ability. However ability can be accurately assessed to a standard through testing. Cadets should be properly trained and then tested to a standard that is adequate for the job.

The more hours, the more experience. Despite this, experience can not be qualified by hours alone. Is there a more appropriate way of defining or even testing experience?

[Microburst2002]

We have a problem, particularly in Florida, where some flight schools have essentially become pilot mills. It's not in the flight school's financial interest to ensure mastery of a particular subject, they just want to make sure the student can pass the check ride. They don't want those dollars heading to their competitor on the other side of the airport because training is taking too long.


You've nailed it! but this is not restricted to FLA, I'm afraid. It is a worldwide problem. That's what I say. Cadets are OK if they are considered as the raw material that airlines need, instead of the customers of the flight schools.

[27/09]

Cadets are OK if they are considered as the raw material that airlines need, instead of the customers of the flight schools.

It's actually worse than this, they are becoming a profit centre for the airlines as well.

[A37575]

Over and over I see the new generation of automatons stumped when the automatics are slow to respond, or not following the programmed inputs. Meanwhile, the airplane digresses from the flight path while the copilot attempts to correct the automation anomaly with more automation inputs.


Agree wholeheartedly. Although now in retirement, one event that I shall never forget was going into a Spanish airport from Hamburg on a CAVOK day with hardly any traffic. The F/O was PF from Hamburg in a new 737 Classic. He had displayed an arrogant manner during the flight apparently resenting flying with a captain from a foreign country. He had graduated from a prestigious company owned flying school then straight on to the 737 and with 800 hours in his log book was alarmingly automation dependent.

The approach required an outbound descent from a VOR starting at 4000 ft, followed by a base turn to intercept the ILS. At 20 miles from VOR at the the airport it was clear that a visual left circuit was feasible and I so asked him if he would like to join downwind visually.

He snapped back saying since it was his leg, would I let him make his own decisions thank you very much - and that he had already programmed the instrument procedure in the FMC. That is - over the VOR fly outbound descending with a left turn to intercept the ILS. I was sorely tempted to take over control and fly a visual circuit and save fuel. But then again I was also aware the company swore by full use of the automatics, so I shrugged my shoulders and let him burn the fuel.

The autopilot had been engaged since shortly after lift off at Hamburg, and from the left seat as we passed 3 miles abeam the runway at 210 knots I thought to myself what a bloody waste of fuel as it was costing the company an extra 15 track miles. After the autopilot turned on base leg at 10 DME and about to intercept the ILS, it suddenly gently reversed the direction of turn, the autothrottles went to climb thrust, and the aircraft went into a climb towards the opposite direction of the inbound ILS track. Nothing dangerous of course - even though if something wasn't done soon, we would have been literally heading for the hills. The cause of this manoeuvre escapes me now - it was so long ago.

What I shall never forget was this ace of the automatics watching helplessly as we veered away from the programmed flight path. Instead of acting instantly to switch to manual flight to recover the situation, with an explosive oath in his own language he dived head down in the CDU, pushing buttons furiously.

I watched with growing interest at his panic stricken attempts to control the autopilot. Now there is a sensible limit when to take over control and clearly we couldn't stuff around much longer lest radar see what was going on and ask awkward questions.

Needless to say, as pilot in command, I could not wait too long for him to try and recover the situation. Eventually I took over, switched off the automatics and flew it manually back to the ILS in the right direction. The whole operation took perhaps 30 seconds. Established on the ILS in CAVOK at 7 DME I handed back control to the F/O. To my astonishment, in a flash he had the autopilot and autothrottle re-engaged and locked on the ILS. Talk about blind reliance on automatics. I had now witnessed it at first hand. In that airline, company SOP actively discourages its crews from manual flying even on a beautiful sunny day. And these blokes are the captains of the future...

[A37575]

The cadets start with a clean slate without bad habits picked up in military or GA or bush flying

That statement has always intrigued me. Exactly what are these so called "bad habits" that are perceived by some as endemic in the flying environment you describe above? I ask that question because around 1975 a tiny but exceedingly resource-wealthy island in the Central Pacific region, started an airline, eventually reaching several F28, Boeing 737's and Boeing 727's. The route structure covered tiny atolls once fought over by Japanese and US forces in WW2 and many other destinations from Singapore and Hong Kong to Fiji and Honolulu and places in between.

Approximately 80 percent of its 50 pilots were former military pilots several of whom had served in Vietnam. Their experience was priceless to any operator. Their military types included Mirage, F4 Phantom, Mustang and Meteor and Sabre fighters, C130 Hercules, DH Caribou, Convair 440, Viscount and Dakota transports, Lincoln four engine heavy bombers as well as Canberra light bombers, and a sprinkling of experienced general aviation charter pilots with black night bush experience in the Australian out back with the Royal Flying Doctor Service. Even two former military helicopter pilots now experienced in general aviation charter aircraft such as Barons, Chieftains and various turbo-props. One has flown from aircraft carriers where `bad habits` could prove fatal.

That airline has had an unblemished flight safety record to this day. So perhaps it is unwise to generalize when discussing the relative merits of pilots applying to join an airline from general aviation, the military or someone from bush flying. We all have to undergo simulator training and that includes adherence to company and regulatory SOP's. Even the best of civilian trained so called cadet pilots, are required to meet the same standards of the parent airline. It is called standardization where there is no room for `bad habits`.

[captainsuperstorm]

the bottomline is that a 200h clueless imature pilot will get a job on an airbus and you won't get anything, not even a piper job.

Suck it or leave it. This is life...nobody own you a job because you have 20 years seniority and 20'000 hours.
some chinese are actually working for 2 euro a day to make you happy.

in fact, soon, everybody will work for peanuts, and everything will be very cheap like flight ticket at 20$/flight.

Personally I enjoy to fly for cheap in a high tech aircraft flown on automatic.
I know these guys flying Airbus 318 to 380 worth ****, but I know the A/P is one of the best and the plane can fly CAT3 by itself.
Most Airbus captains are not better than these rich kids.

At the end of the day , I look how much I can save. If you can not make a living with this damn aviation, do something else.(Clean toilets in a mac do if you have to. There is a shortage of **** cleaners.)

whatever you say, or do, is not going to change anything! again, suck it, or leave and enjoy your life (if you have one!!)!

[cosmo kramer]

A37575, you were the captain and it wouldn't have been problem for you to say. "Son, it's cavok, it's your leg and I wan't to see you perform a visual approach - Periode. If you have a problem I'll guide you and help you."
Chance is that the guy would actually have enjoyed it, learned from it and in the process gained respect from you. You missed out on that opportunity.

[flash8]

How times have changed. I cut my teeth flying single engine aircraft aircraft across the African bushveld with a gradual transition through twins, turboprops and finally onto the heavy metal.


Along with the elimination of self-improvers, we have now sunk to the lowest common denominator (150hrs I believe now on the so called "MPL") before narrowbody. The MPL was a genius in cost-cutting by management.

It's endemic of a me-me-me culture (both management who cut costs to the bone to increase profits to raise their salaries) and the trainee (FI/flying a light twin for a few hundred hours - ughhh no way jose) and a weak regulatory system (regulate AFTER an accident).

Yes, it worked with Hamble and that philosophy because their genuinely was rigorous selection, motivation and.. that dirty word.... aye.... ability!!

It surprises me many close an eye to the fact you can now go from zero hours to LHS 744 purely via P2F, yes the LHS 744 is for sale as well now (Eaglejet). Another Kos waiting to happen.

My girlfriends dad had 1400hrs FI/Twin before he managed to scrape on the 1-11. Nowadays 1400 hrs and you'll be eyeing your first command.

[ExSp33db1rd]

...........actively discourages its crews from manual flying even on a beautiful sunny day. And these blokes are the captains of the future...

Captains of the Past.

teaching young Microsoft experienced whizz kids towards the end of my career, one of my colleagues remarked that the wheel had turned full circle.

Do you remember, he said, some of those ex WWII captains when we started with the airlines, couldn't fly an instrument approach to save their lives ( literally, I could tell you some hair-raising tales of NDB approaches attempted in those times ! ) but drop out of cloud too fast, not configured, chasing the ADF needle, but say - the runway's over there Sir, ( never forgetting the Sir ) and they would immediately settle down, straighten up and hand fly an immaculate visual approach and landing, whereas this present lot can fly an instrument approach better than we ever could, or probably ever will, but drop out of cloud perfectly positioned, everything in order, and they lose it in the final few feet, as they can't connect a real aeroplane to the real ground.

Too true - what are they gonna do when it all turns to custard - and it will, one day.

Not so long ago gave a 14 yr. old a Trial Flight in the microlight ( advanced, LSA if you prefer ) and I got out and staggered to the club bar and demanded a drink, said I wouldn't send him solo, but I'd give him an instrument rating.

Height, heading, speed control etc absolutely spot on, amazing, but then I realised that he was an experienced Microsoft Flight Sim. practitioner. Got my own back a few lessons later, you don't fall off the chair when you stall a computer game !!

Glad to say he went on to be the youngest licensed microlight pilot in the Country on his 16th birthday, and is now Multi-eng. Inst. rated and looking for his first job.

[Mikehotel152]

Spot on Cosmo Kramer :ok:

Hand in hand with experience is confidence. Encourage someone to hand fly the plane and they'll surprise themselves.

[Hannibalpower]

When you have guys with 200 hours and also do not have the standard of language proficiency poor on the radio with standard phraseology , and are flying old aircraft.

They will learn and there are competent 200 hours guys of course.

In Europe and Vueling they have the low time to save costs and cheaper easier to manipulate pilots while experienced A 320 pilots are flying in Asia and the middle east making more more money there, pathetic.

Safety the number one priority ?

It is more stressful and work to be constantly training these guys even after they have been realesed on the :ugh:line.

It is revolting how the airlines hire guys while they experienced pilots with time do not get even an answer on thier resume.


Under certain conditions you may have a contributing factor to an accident

[distracted cockroach]

All the above was interesting reading, but consider this.....NZ and Australia both have a lot of experienced third level pilots with extensive IFR and multi engine experience. On top of that, there are many NZ/Aussie pilots working for overseas airlines who would probably love to be able to return to their home country...in other words, there is NO SHORTAGE of experienced pilots.
The problem is that Jetstar (particularly Jetstar NZ) are not prepared to pay the "market rate" for an experienced pilot.:yuk:
They have been turned down by many pilots because the conditions on offer are below that of even the local turboprop operators. The cadet scheme is there for one reason, and one reason only...cost.

[Sillert,V.I.]

SLFs...is it better to travel on an airline with pilots with only 200+ hours or fly on one with fake pilots onboard? No brainer?

I'd rather travel on an airline that recruits its pilots on the basis of their ability to fly, not their ability to pay.

I'd rather be flown by pilots who choose to stay in their job because they're paid a decent living wage, than by pilots who have to stay in their job because they're shackled by an ongoing bond.

And I'd rather fly with an airline that penalises crew who bust minimums, rather than with an airline that penalises crew who make costly diversions.

Sadly I suspect that most SLF's would rather travel with the airline that sells the cheapest tickets:ugh:

[blind pew]

Sillert V 1
Think you are wrong regarding SLF.

Most people are frightened of flying and would like to minimize the risks.

Unfortunately it is very difficult for the public to discover the truth of what goes on in the industry.

My old company developed a low cost carrier and I witnessed several scenes where yanks refused to board an egg beater for the final leg of their journey.

In the states they knew about the safety record of regional carriers.

I've used three major carriers to fly to Dubai - although one is a lot cheaper I will NOT use them again due to safety concerns.

But I do use one of the budget carriers in europe with few qualms - except I don't trust the relationship between them and the regulatory authority (from personal experience).

[bubbers44]

The problem with super low cost carriers is they lower their standards so the 200 hr guys can pass so they don't have to pay much for pilots. When I got tested for a job I flew an Electra simulator that I had never been in before and did three approaches with one, two and three engines failed. I felt very happy to get the job even though the job was a B737 and that was the only sim they had. They just wanted to know if you could fly.

I retired after the name changed and later we got bought by a major carrier so had a wonderful career. We had very high requirements and had all been captains in jets before being hired and lots of time. Lowering standards to hire low time pilots only makes sense to the bean counters in management.

I don't care how automatic the airplanes now are, we need competent pilots flying them. You are not competent with 200 hrs.

Sometimes the captain doesn't have time to baby sit you if things go wrong and would like some help.

[nafod]

After wasting over an hour reading this entire thread.....someone nails it.
Sure, we all have flown "single pilot" before. This is made better when you have someone who can talk and squawk for you.

No matter how afraid the public may be....if they had any idea the pilot (?) in the right seat had a scant 200...even 300 hours, they would surely take a train, boat or bus.

The problem is the carrier who is allowed to do this anyway.

There are educated people who can even resemble a competent pilot with only 2-300 hours.

.....just pisses me off that I had to jump through hoop after hoop in the interest of safety. Oh, but that does not matter any more. Flying is non-essential to being a pilot.
Come on guys...how can this go on?

If indeed there are so few pilots that such low time is overlooked....then at least the training could be targeted to help them overcome the age-old catch-22.

Things are different now for sure. BUT....one accident with one of these guys expecting the Captain to save his butt (plus his own) will fix it.
(except in India)
There, they not only hire 200-300 hour "pilots"....but they have more P-51 time than Chuck Yeager and pay for the license under the table.

A blind man man swinging his seeing eye dog over his head is not just having a look around. He is abusing a dog. It is what it is. A spade is a spade.

Becoming a pilot is expensive. Experience is priceless.

Why do F-1 drivers wear the yellow helmet for a few years?

[bubbers44]

What if Sully landed in the Hudson with one of these kids? He was good enough to do it himself but his FO made sure they did all the checklists they had time for to make the Hudson arrival safely with the time left. Not all captains are as sharp as Sully. I always let my captains have command of his aircraft when I was an FO but never let them do anything dangerous. A couple of times I wanted to do a visual approach in marginal conditions and the FO felt uncontfortable about it so did the whole approach. That is how it should be done. Safety before expediency.

[Oakape]

A37575, you were the captain and it wouldn't have been problem for you to say. "Son, it's cavok, it's your leg and I wan't to see you perform a visual approach - Periode. If you have a problem I'll guide you and help you."
Chance is that the guy would actually have enjoyed it, learned from it and in the process gained respect from you. You missed out on that opportunity.

Spot on Cosmo Kramer :ok:


I'm sorry guys, but with an attitude like this -
He snapped back saying since it was his leg, would I let him make his own decisions thank you very much - and that he had already programmed the instrument procedure in the FMC.

I doubt he would have enjoyed or learnt anything.

Some people have a professional attitude & are always looking to learn -from anybody. Right through to retirement.

Others have a different attitude & every comment is taken as a direct attack on them & their ability. You generally only offer suggestions once to these sorts (twice if you are a sucker for punishment) & then shut-up. Then you watch & wait for the inevitable to occur as no one is infallible, taking over if required & mentally shaking your head at where the industry seems to be headed.

I tried to discuss a complete screw up with one of these sorts once, after we had shut down at the gate. All that happened is that we went round & round in circles as he launched into the blame game & proceded to lay the blame for what happened everywhere else but where it belonged. He would not discuss the technicalities of the approach or the areas where better decisions & different choices would have perhaps resulted in a better operation, no matter how I attempted to address the issues. I eventually decided that I was getting nowhere & gave up.

Some people just don't want to be helped, don't think they need to learn anything & arc up any time you open your mouth.

Then there are others, who seem to think that every flight is a competition & that points will be awarded for every time you manage to show the other fellow up. They take great pleasure in any standard call that they think you have missed (real or not), often leaping in with the call just as you are about to open your mouth. Sometimes you have missed the call, but often you are doing something that is higher on the list of priorities & they end up showing their lack of airmanship by not even being aware of what is more important in the greater scheme of things. I have had an F/O making snide remarks on one occasion about my descent profile, both in the flight deck & on the radio. A descent profile I might add, that resulted in no use of the speed brake & the power coming up at 1,500' on the approach. And no questions after on my decision making & technique so that he could learn why it worked when he obviously thought that it wouldn't. Oh, and no appology either.

There are some huge egos in this business. Perhaps it is just that aviation is one of those professions that is attractive to the egocentric. However, the days when these personality types were needed in commercial aviation are long gone & they are generally more of a menace than a help these days. Unfortunately, they still populate both sides of the flight deck & tend to make life miserable for those who have to fly with them. Hopefully, the relative safety of the business, coupled with good SOP's, will make them more of an irritant than serious threat to flight safety.

[Microburst2002]

Oakape

You are a good observer and you have nailed it.

I hate those guys who say the callouts just before they are due. I think the rule is that if the one who has to make the call out has forgotten (or put lower in the priority list) the other doesn't have to do the call out until it is clear that the call out will be missed.

for instance, if you miss the "one thousand to go" call out, the other shouldn't say before 900 or 800 to go. Not at 1000 or 1100 to go. Then there would not be such "competitions"

These pilots are those who think what someone said here pages ago, that airline pilots are procedure performers as opposed to GA pilots.

No we are not. We are pilots that, on top of all the other things that any pilot has to do and to master, we have to manage a complex machine in a complex environment, interfacing with crewmembers and computers and all these things mean we have to be standard and carry out procedures methodically and thoroughly.

The highly standardized procedures philosophy is complementary o the other skills that pilots require.

What is more important, the 10,000 climbing procedures or answering the ATC, setting the FCU, changing over to the new frequency, etc...? For many, the procedures are first.

What is more important, the 10,000 descending procedures or figuring out what is the implication of the ATC instruction you have just been given taking into account those TCAS traffics which you thougt were meking you number 3 and now it turns out you are number one and looks like you are high on profile and you will need high speed below 10,000 and probably speed brakes, and....? Many will let the airplane get higher and higher while announcing 10 minutes for landing to the cabin crew, rather than do the procedures 15 seconds later with an impecable situational awareness.

These kind of things occur very often during training flights or route checks, where nobody wants to miss a call out or a procedure.

[RogerClarence]

Safety, Costs, Profits, Old vs New School trains of thought, Europe, Asia, ME, Pacific......al this aside

Can someone intrduce me to the pilots that were born with unfrozen licence's 1500+ hours etc, and as they came into the world the asimilated the knowledge of all aviators before them?

I was under the impression that its a bit like everything else in life, everyone has to start somewhere, why all the finger pointing at the young guns that want in because they have flying under their skin? Ok so they pay for their training, pay for a type rating etc etc....so what!

Not that long ago, in certain parts of the world a lot of boys and a few girls went to H.M. RAF et-al and flew His/Her planes for a few years because they couldnt get in any other way, then they went and got jobs where thay had to walk ten paces behind the commander and speak only when spoken to, and we have all seen the reports regardig CRM/safety on that on.....and lets face it, globally there is hardly a mass of reports of 200 hours pilots dropping out of the skies daily/weekly are there?

Perhaps if during the 70's/80's and 90's pilots and to an extent cabin crew, had stuck together, without making demands for ever greater pay and terms, and had actually stuck up and maintained something sensible instead of being "the big I am" perhaps things would be a bit more favourable today and the industry would have a true camaradere.....

Just a thought
I'll go back under this stone now

[Oakape]

RogerClarence, yes, 200 hour pilots are not 'dropping out of the sky' on a daily, weekly, or even monthly basis. And yes, pilots are sometimes their own worse enemies. But the issue is reduction in safety & most importantly, latent failures.

I'm sure no one would argue that low hours, poor training, fatigue & poor T & C's doesn't lead to a less safe situation. Fortunately the industry is very safe to start with. However, this high level of safety becomes part of the problem. Poor management decisions are rewarded with economic benefits & no penalties in the short term, as the built in safety takes up the slack. This reinforces to the decision maker that his actions were correct, leading to more of the same. Even if management do recognise that a particular decision makes the operation less safe, the problem then becomes indentifying just where the line is, where less safe becomes downright dangerous. And modern management, with little or no aviation experience, are poorly equipped to do this. In an ideal world they would rely on expert advice from flight ops middle mangement, but it is no longer an ideal world. Modern management believe that their skills readily translate from industry to industry & are blissfully unaware of what they don't know about this particular industry.

That being said, I believe that management in general are aware that there is a line they shouldn't cross but, driven by competition & the public's insatiable appetite for a 'bargin' (the public are so driven by this that they have lost all concept of the cost/quality equation), they are actually endeavouring to find just where that line is, so they can run the operation just above it. The problem is that it is in a different place for each operator depending on the equipment, environment, people & culture. And it is so subtle that you generally don't know that you have crossed it until well after the fact, when you have a very serious incident or accident.

The latest issue is that when the above happens, modern 'ostrich' management often don't learn the lesson & neatly shift the blame to the pilots, generally for failing to follow procedures. Procedures that have become so numerous, complex & widely spread among numerous manuals, that very few, if any, pilots would remember or even know all of them. A big thank you to all the company lawyers out there. And if the lesson is not learned, the latent failure/s continue to populate the operation, waiting to strike again.

Back to the point. Generally 200 hour pilots are not the problem. It is the lack of adequate formal training & development, coupled with pushing pilots out asap into a high pressure, high workload & time constrained operating environment, that is the problem. Cost control is the new mantra. As far as mangement is concerned, the regulatory authority has set the minimum & so the minimum has to be safe. And so they don't see the need to spend the money required to have their operation operating above the minimum.

There are still some very talented people coming through, with a high innate sense of airmanship & natural flying ability, who are able to learn fast. They will still do very well over time, despite the difficulties. But the average person often struggles & then gets pushed out into the real world to learn the rest on the job. They then develop coping mechanisims that may not be ideal, such as over reliance on automation, & this can lead to the sort of latent failures that can bite, sometimes years into the future.

[Microburst2002]

A pilot allowed to fly in an airliner with just 200 hours should be a talented person, quality controlled and with a good training.

A pilot allowerd to fly in an airliner with just 200 hours should not be just the first who came with the money in the hand.

The firs case is a perfectly safe pilot, if the airline has proper training captains and the ratio of low houred/ high houred pilots is within reason. The best captains I know were 200 hour pilots when they first seat in a 737. The second case is a safety problem which, as Oakape says, is masked by the otherwise very safe nature of air transport.

With such pilot-customers substituting pilot-assets, one of the most important cheese slices is getting filled with holes. This fact will not be apparent until one day the light beam happens to pass all the other slices.

[RAT 5]

Back to the question of the trained monkey factory which breeds the future captains: in those airlines which take primarily cadets, and assess upgrades after 3000hrs, what is the usual failure rate of command courses? I'me aware that most airlines have dropped the 'trapper' attitude and adopted coaching and grooming techniques. However, I still hear that much of the failures are due to lack of situational awareness when multi-tasking; slow decision making to cope with slightly unusual scenarios. We all know that most accidents have had contributions from non QRH items. They need handling with good old fashioned commonsense and understanding. SOP's and following the book will generally get you through a standard day. On command courses those should be a given; but what the course is really trying to find out is how you think outside the box. What are your problem solving skills like as the world wizzes pat at high speed. Can you manage the problem and lead the crew and survive. For me the % failure rate is too high considering the selection process. I am of course assuming that common sense says you only select those you expect to pass. If so, why the number of failures.
Back to the question; what is the average % failure rate?

[767200ER]

This old chestnut. Talk to me when an incident is caused solely by the fact that the FO has 200 hours.

[DozyWannabe]

I guess it all depends on the definition of a "good Captain". Superb aircraft handling abilities are one thing, but ability to manage the rest of the flightcrew effectively (which should - importantly - include being able to make corrections to junior pilots without giving them the bum's-rush!) must be paramount.

Britain's worst aviation disaster killed 118, my best friend was in the RHS.

BEA548 happened 6 years before I was born, but nevertheless, I'm sorry to hear that. That accident appalls and fascinates me in equal measure.

Experienced captains! yes certainly had experience on Lancs but some couldn't fly the Trident themselves.

I wasn't there, but I imagine it must have been a different time entirely. The deference shown by all of British society to war veterans must have clashed terribly with the attempts to get a more sustainable personnel situation going, because when you know you're flying with someone who was facing flak over Germany when you weren't even a gleam in your father's eye - how the hell do you contradict them if they're doing something wrong or dangerous?

I mean, I'm sure the Captains had to put up with their fair share of borderline pilots, but the picture I get of that time was that a significant percentage of the "old guard" tended to assume that all the new recruits were seriously lacking and treated them as such. How were they (I guess - you, pew?) supposed to learn in that kind of environment?

Not that I'd suggest all of the "old guard" were like that, I'm sure there were many who were everything a good Captain should be even in this day and age - but I get the impression that there was a significant clash of cultures at that time, and that one's perspective was wholly dependent on the era in which you were born.

"engage the autopilot! autopilot! autop.." End of recording.
:(

In fact, in the case of BEA548 it was the experienced war veteran Captain who tended to engage the autopilot early (see AAIB report).

[blind pew]

There were some very good ex lancaster pilots but sadly very few in management and in training that I came across in my early days.

The ones that trusted me before the Hamsters got Trident commands were generally post war national service pilots.

One of the first guys to let me land unassisted away from Heathrow (incase I bent the aircraft) was Pete Middleton who was ex Mosquitoes.

One of the first landings I attempted at LHR after my initial training I bounced twice and then got the oxygen masks out and various lights including the control stuck valves. The training captain just laughed and went home. It was an ex Meteor normal line captain - Stan Romaine who patiently spent the next week teaching me how to land.

What I was trusted with was instrument flying and playing with the automatics -although comparatively basic - these tasks were beyond some of the skippers.

We ALWAYS asked the captain if we could take the autopilot out or start the descent - six years I did with that lot of B******ks.
You get less for killing someone in the UK.

Biggest laugh was on my first line trip on The Duck and asked if I could start the descent and three pairs of eyes looked at me as though I was mad.

If you read some of the Papa India report you will find some discrepancies in the testimony and none from the ARB test pilot (Davies)
- whatever some of the guys who were in the training department say I was not properly trained,
I had been told that the ARB would not endorse the 1179,
I knew about configuration stall but we didn't have a written stick push procedure - we had a memory one - dump the system!
We operated the aircraft contrary to the design philosophy - Cunningham.
And not least several captains had tried to off load some of my group - including me - as they believed that we were a dangerous liability.

In perspective Hamble was graduating around 140 cadets per year when the military were graduating ten times that number.
Min entry was A levels against O levels (two years extra high school).
Hamble training was far more comprehensive than RAF and Fleet Air Arm (two of my course mates had thrown in commissions).

So I got to fly passengers around on a THREE crew aircraft with around 250 hours after the best civil aviation school (now disbanded) and I was B*****y dangerous.
We lost at least three aircraft in a couple of years with low time FOs - given two were training - 707 and T2 and I can list loads more accidents with similar factors - Crossair, Buffalo and Cork are recent ones.

And what do the European authorities do?

[Mikehotel152]

Some people have a professional attitude & are always looking to learn -from anybody. Right through to retirement.


Absolutely. I like to think I am one of them. Mind you, I had a LTC whose reaction to a hard landing with a quartering crosswind on a tricky humpback runway was to launch a tirade while still on the runway that appalled me. My stunned silence was met with a 'You don't take criticism well, do you?!'. Sometimes pilots in training positions really haven't the faintest idea of how to pass on knowledge. I've learned the most from regular line Captains who explain their actions with enthusiasm and good humour.

A pilot allowed to fly in an airliner with just 200 hours should be a talented person, quality controlled and with a good training.

True, but it's clear that most regular posters on pprune believe that very few, if any, of the pilots who fly for the low-co airlines tick these boxes. This snobish view pervades notwithstanding the fact that recruitment into the 'legacy' carriers stalled at precisely the time that the low-co cadet bonanza began. Moreover, there's an assumption that anyone with money is disqualified from having the 'right stuff'. Think about the logic behind that, please!

Then there are others, who seem to think that every flight is a competition & that points will be awarded for every time you manage to show the other fellow up.

This is sometimes a cultural issue and other times a default position for people who need to top-up their own egos for fear of failure. Just my humble opinion, of course. I've flown with some Captains who seem to take satisfaction from stepping on the PF's toes, who try to 'fly the plane through the handling pilot' - even where the handling pilot is more spatially or situationally aware (or dare I say it, more able). Sitting on the jumpseat, I've seen FOs berating Captains (a consequence of a shallow cockpit gradient in the west) and FOs sulking and disengaging from the job at hand when the commander decides he's 'the man'. Ah, CRM...a huge can of wriggly things.

[cosmo kramer]

DozyWannabe
In fact, in the case of BEA548 it was the experienced war veteran Captain who tended to engage the autopilot early (see AAIB report).
You took my comment out of context. It was a reply to:
p.s if you think 200hr first officers are a worry, i've come across pilots with thousands of hours who cant do the job properly. They're the ones i really worry about!
Like I wrote myself:
You will be in for a surprise and your beliefs will be shattered when you find out that many 10.000+ hour captain doesn't have the first clue what they are doing.
I am arguing that the skill of experienced pilots is being eroded by automation to the point that some captains don't fly better than a 200 hrs newbie.

A crash from 1972 may not carry much relevance today. But to take 2 more recent examples Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 - stall on approach, didn't monitor the autopilot. Flash Air Flight 604 - loss of control after takeoff due to spatial disorientation (the crash from where the "autopilot!" quote comes). In this case the F/O was actually aware of what the captain was doing, but didn't interfere due to culture.

So I am not bashing the 200 hrs co-pilots. I am actually bashing the thousands of experienced automation monkey captains out there, that only take the aircraft in their hands with the Flight Director on and safely established on the ILS.

[Max Angle]

Flown with lots of 250hr co-pilots over the years and most have been pretty good if a little rough round the edges.

In my opinion they are far less of a flight safety hazard than inexperienced and/or unsuitable Captains who have been promoted too soon or should never have been promoted in the first place.

[A37575]

This old chestnut. Talk to me when an incident is caused solely by the fact that the FO has 200 hours.

Are you talking about just an incident or a serious accident? Big difference. Remember that on Pprune or in the Western media, we cannot possibly hear of every aircraft incident/accident around the world. In addition there are certainly hundreds of incidents involving low hour cadets in the RH seat of an airliner that are kept in-house, or go unreported.

Ask any training captain in SE Asia where cadet pilots are in their multi-hundreds if he has ever flown virtually single pilot in bad weather because the cadet under his command was way behind the aircraft. Get away with anything often enough and the perceived risk diminishes considerably.

[RAT 5]

I'm with Max Angle. I'm amazed that nowadays it is allowed, even by the insurance companies, that there can be only 3500hrs total experience in the sharp end when 20 years ago, or so, it was 5000hrs just for the bossman. The same lowering of qualifications has not passed over into other insurance fields; indeed the opposite. (OK not apples & apples). However, there have been too many crashes where the F/O could see, or should have seen, said bossman making a horlicks of it and did not do enough to save the day. Many a/c were serviceable enough, and still flying OK enough, before terra firma gave everyone a headache. Include the Kenya airways B737 crash where they thought the A/P was engaged, but it wasn't. It is a crew. The training has to start somewhere. If the LHS is competant enough the RHS can have a well trained 200hr pilot in it. The automatics and SOP's will cover their backsides on most days, and in the LoCo's the learning curve is steep and continuous at 50 sector pm. Long-haul very different; it will take years, and 30% of that is asleep. In short haul it is when the sight deficient are leading the blind and both are unaware that the manure is about to hit the air conditioning and let it happen and then scream help. This is not in the book. Too late.
However, in ntodays cost conscious world of risk management the powers that be do not think there is a problem; so don't fix it. On statistics they may even be right. Remember after the Valuair crash the FAA did a cost analysis of retro-fitting DC-9's and B737's with cargo fire detectors and extinguishers. On a cost/risk analysis they decided it was not worth the cost. New designs are factory fitted; much cheaper, and after 20 years all the old 'risky' models are gone. Could the same kind of thinking be the cause of that until low experience of the crew is sighted in a multitude of crashes all is fine and nowt needs fixing?

[No RYR for me]

Agree with Max too. It is hard to swallow for anybody who went the long road that a 200 hour guy can the work as good as they do... I took me several months to loose the old tricks of the trade,, :\

A35 I think you are confusing any 200 hour with a well trained 200 hour guy or girl... :8

[justagigolo77]

The automatics and SOP's will cover their backsides on most days

But what about the days they don't? A level of experience will be the only saviour from making the potential of hundreds of lives from becoming sacrificial lambs because someone thought a 250hr guy should be sitting in the co-jo's seat to save/make money on him or her.

[Too Few Stripes]

I agree with earlier posts that the main concern is low hour Captains, not FO's. I've flown with many low hour guys and gals and overall they're very switched on, when everythings progressing normally! But that's what you expect and when you're in the left seat, whether in a training position or not, it's part of your role to help the FO's progress as quickly and as efficiently as possible by passing on your own knowlege gained from years of experience. Unfortunately it my last company it was becoming the norm for FO's to get promoted with 3000Hrs total time, this is really pushing it in my opinion. There are SOME FO's who are ready at this stage but they're far from the average standard, the majority of FO's who are being coerced by the company to go for an early command assessment (where the standard required for pass/fail could easily be influenced by strong commercial pressures!) are simply not ready. Yes, they'll be fine 99% of the time when it's all running reasonably normally but put them in a never seen before position and mistakes will be made, combine that with them flying with a 200hr newbie and the pressure's really on! Promoting from within only works when you have enough suitable and experienced candidates, unfortunately in almost every airline that has seen rapid expansion there will be many Captains who simply shouldn't be there but have scraped through by the necessity of 'bums on seats' !

[bubbers44]

I, as a brand new B737 captain coming from another aircraft was sent on a charter half way across the US and somehow was paired with a 21 year old FO that could not copy a clearance, called a clearance to climb to FL290, climbing to 29,000 ft and couldn't fly the airplane because the autopilot was broke. That is so wrong. Now we are trying to make it sound economically sound to save money? What is happening to this industry?

[sevenstrokeroll]

ideally, the copilot is a fully qualified pilot ACTING as second in command...not second in command because he isn't well qualified by hours or experience/knowledge.

[JustJoinedToSearch]

I'm surprised no-one has said this yet, but the reason why the low hour/cadet Onestar scheme is something of note in Australia is this;

We have a very large GA industry and no shortage of pilots at all. It is not similar to Europe in any way. If an airline with good T+Cs asked for applications, they would probably get upwards of 20 applications from guys with 5000+ hours including 1000+2000 hours RPT Turboprop command or similar.

As an example of some of the expectations in Aus, here are the requirements for a few currently advertised positions.

Baron pilot (ie very light piston twin):


Total Time 800 -1000hrs
Minimum Twin Command Time - 100 Multi
Minimum 6 months remaining on MECIR with 2 renewals
Baron/ Traveller Endorsement

Cessna 441 Captain (not sure if this is single pilot or not)


2500 hours Total Time
1500 hours PIC
500 hours Multi Engine PIC
300 hours Turbine PIC
ATPL and 3 Renewals
C441 or similar experience preferred

And this is for a Beech 1900D position (doesn't state Captain or FO);


ATPL
2500hrs total
1500hrs PIC
500hrs M/E PIC
300hrs Turbine

Also in addition, there are none at the moment but usually you can't get a C210 job with less than 300-400 hours.

So as you can see, the culture of aviation in Australia is 200 hours=not enough to fly a C210 VFR Charter and 3000 inlcuding plenty of multi engine command=maybe about right to get into the RHS of a narrowbody airliner.

Jetstar are doing it for one reason and one reason only, cost. There is no reason they can't recruit suitable pilots except for the fact they don't want to pay what is required.

A 200 hour pilot can be very good (military fast jet guys for example) but the oxford training is not even in the same universe as the training you get in the air force and this is the issue.

Anyway I just thought this might help those unfamiliar with how things are done here understand why this is a big deal (obviously it wouldn't be in europe).

[gadpilot]

Airlines are looking for systems administrators, not pilots. Thats exactly what these low time pilots are and most often pretty good at it. Plus you can get two or three for the cost of a pilot. As long as all the fancy tech is good to go, they are good to go. One day they might just be inflatable. Make the old timers look like incompetents the way they whiz through the FMS, set up the hold and approach. Show you all a thing or two in the Sim as well. Dazzle you with all you have long forgotten in your illustrious careers.
Your Airbus calls you a 'retard' approaching the touchdown zone:* (Not a bash at you Airbus drivers). We should all be insulted and take that as a sign of whats to come. Bet it didn't have the cheek to bark that out at Sully during his ditching. Doing his impression of Icarus in his winged tube of failed technology. Lucky him for having a seasoned FO at his side and all that useless glider time under his belt.
Reports of pilots averaging 9 hours of stick time per year. Over the atlantic in a thunderstorm....:hmm: RIP
Does not bode well for the future.
Know your limitations and that of your bird. Test them from time to time. Never know when they might come in handy. Hands off the FA:= and on your stick:ok:

[dnomyer]

i just got a job in Qatar Airways on a330-300. i did my training in america and my jaa conversion in Oslo Norway. i have around 1200 hours, 500 multi engine.
i worked as instructor after my cpl, and got alot of experience compare to new cpl students who get put in the right seat right after their training.
but it all depends on the school and wich instructors u have, some cpl students can fly better than other instructors who have around 3000 hours.

im 21 years old and flying a big jet in a couple of months!!

[Al Murdoch]

Gadpilot, you have no idea what happened in that accident and I think to imply that it was caused by the pilots is in poor taste given that they are not able to defend themselves.
I have flown with plenty of 10,000 hour wonders whom I want to be nowhere near in the case of an emergency (one springs to mind instantly - he learned to fly the 737 before the Wright Brothers). We all bring something to the table and there are guys with 500 hours that have vastly superior CRM skills than those with many more hours, ditto aircraft handling skills. The reverse also applies, naturally.
We're all different, all have different backgrounds and experiences. Good pilots learn to use the skills and qualities available to them to their advantage. The good leaders recognise who has skill in one area compared to another and act accordingly. IMHO, whilst the number of hours in one's logbook can tell you the likely breadth of experience, it is meaningless without looking at the leadership and inter-personal skills of an individual. Many people with many thousands of hours are sadly lacking in that department.
The bad pilots are the one's that spend all their time bitching about how much better they are than everyone else and how crap all their first officers are, which to me demonstrates poor leadership, judgement and manners.

[gadpilot]

Al Murdoch.
I'm in absolute agreement with much of what you say. I do not profess to know the cause of the AF accident. How could I possibly? What we do know, is that something went very wrong and was obviously beyond the ability of the pilots. Perhaps this speaks to the overconfidence in the technology and less and less emphasis on good old stick and rudder skills. I'm of the opinion that 'pilots' are being engineered out of the cockpit. That same technology that makes life so easy can, will and has bitten people in the rear end. At the end of the day we still need a machines we can fly when the proverbial hits the fan. Not to be bombarded and stumped by reels of computer generated garbage being spat out at us. When that does happen though, I would be happier as a pax knowing that the old guy up front can revert to his stick and rudder skills, make the right decisions and I really couldn't give a hoot about his CRM skills at that point. This is not a thread aiming to bash low time pilots. We all start there. It's more a concern about putting less experienced pilots in positions that for safety should perhaps require more experience. About the willingness of airlines to tap into the pool of hungry low time pilots and to exploit them while putting more pressure on higher time pilots to nurture them. The cumulative effect of this being less safety, richer CEOs and shareholders and pilots wondering why this job doesn't pay what it used to. Hope I make myself clearer.

[twochai]

IMHO, whilst the number of hours in one's logbook can tell you the likely breadth of experience, it is meaningless without looking at the leadership and inter-personal skills of an individual. Many people with many thousands of hours are sadly lacking in that department.


Al Murdoch:

You've hit the nail on the head: pilot selection is the key!

The problem, of course, is that it requires rigorous, impartial pre-employment testing and evaluation which is not easy to achieve in reality.

[bubbers44]

gadpilot, I agree with you. The FDR's and CVR's have been downloaded so we will soon know what happened. I think we will find the pilots in the cockpit couldn't deal with the pitot static error. Every airliner I have flown has had a checklist for unreliable airspeed that tells you pitch, power for your altitude and weight. I chose not to fly the Airbus so am not familiar with their procedures. I assume they had simular procedures, I don't know. I know flying through an area of weather would make it difficult to control an airplane using pitch and power but it was probably all they had. Relying on incorrect airspeed info would doom the flight. We will see.

[kick the tires]

Bubbers44 said: gadpilot, I agree with you. The FDR's and CVR's have been downloaded so we will soon know what happened. I think we will find the pilots in the cockpit couldn't deal with the pitot static error. Every airliner I have flown has had a checklist for unreliable airspeed that tells you pitch, power for your altitude and weight. I chose not to fly the Airbus so am not familiar with their procedures. I assume they had simular procedures, I don't know. I know flying through an area of weather would make it difficult to control an airplane using pitch and power but it was probably all they had. Relying on incorrect airspeed info would doom the flight. We will see.

Bubbers, you need to sit down and read your post. Reflect on what you have written and DELETE IT!

You have no idea what has happened; you have no idea about the Airbus procedures or flight control laws. Yet you offer an explanation as to what has happened to AF! Incredible. How do YOU know they couldnt deal with a static error? How do YOU know it was indeed a static error? What a shameful, amateurish post.

[Rananim]

Bubbers, you need to sit down and read your post. Reflect on what you have written and DELETE IT!

You have no idea what has happened; you have no idea about the Airbus procedures or flight control laws. Yet you offer an explanation as to what has happened to AF! Incredible. How do YOU know they couldnt deal with a static error? How do YOU know it was indeed a static error? What a shameful, amateurish post.

I dont think he made any conclusions.Something brought it down didnt it and PS error is top suspect(as far as I know).And if that is the case,a pilot's inability to handle that scenario would be very pertinent to what we are discussing in this thread.Where has airmanship gone?The ADIRU and FMC are the 2 magic boxes aboard any modern airliner and theyre wonderful inventions but they can go wrong.How you deal with it when that happens is directly proportional to the pilots level of airmanship.Lets wait and see what the AF boxes uncover.Were 2 FO's at the controls and if so why did Capt plan his rest that way(airmanship)?Did they fly opt alt - or opt alt +?(airmanship)And what were their actions if they did indeed encounter a PS error at altitude near buffet margins?It shall be interesting to see.

[Australianguy]

Funny how all the mircosoft flight sim wonders (and those with no airline experience) think that a 200 hour wonder is suitable for a right hand seat in a jet airliner.

By the way, most professional airline pilots are sick of wannabies pretending to be actual airline pilots and posting comments as if they know what they are talking about. Only a 200 hour pilot thinks that 200 hours is enough to sit in the right hand seat:ugh:

[27/09]

Funny how all the mircosoft flight sim wonders (and those with no airline experience) think that a 200 hour wonder is suitable for a right hand seat in a jet airliner.

By the way, most professional airline pilots are sick of wannabies pretending to be actual airline pilots and posting comments as if they know what they are talking about. Only a 200 hour pilot thinks that 200 hours is enough to sit in the right hand seat

Very much a case of you don't know what you don't know

[Denti]

Funny how all the mircosoft flight sim wonders (and those with no airline experience) think that a 200 hour wonder is suitable for a right hand seat in a jet airliner.

By the way, most professional airline pilots are sick of wannabies pretending to be actual airline pilots and posting comments as if they know what they are talking about. Only a 200 hour pilot thinks that 200 hours is enough to sit in the right hand seat

Nice little rant there. Now, can you explain why the likes of Lufthansa, KLM, Swiss etc. still do exactly that as their main route into the company? After 60 years of experience doing it that way? And how far below the world average their safety standard is?

Never let facts get in the way of a good rant :D

[pool]

Were 2 FO's at the controls and if so why did Capt plan his rest that way(airmanship)?

I guess you do not fly augmented LR. Today's rostering is so tight, the fatigue level so high, that you need to pre-plan your rest by arriving fully rested or maybe a little tired. Any change to the given rest pattern needs to be coordinated before the flight with the concerned crew.
Sounds stupid? Well, that's what it is in my company at least. We have a rest plan for your entire time off that pretty much tells you when to sleep, what to eat, drink and when to pee, all written down in the OMA!!!!!!
So try changing in flight and you're already on the hook for a breach of SOP. (you can just never win ...)

As to low timers. It is not the 200h FOs that are worrying. In most legacy companies who used ab initio pilots, thelatter earned their degree on short haul equippment and routes for some years, then upgraded.
Today the system puts them directly on long haul, more sophisticated aircraft and routes.

That does not work well.

Apart from the more complex aviation part on bigger equippment, the variation of the environment is exponential. For the rookie to get to know all the tricks it takes way longer.

That's not good.


In most companies today, the manpower and rostering is so tight, that there is no longer the possibility to roster an experienced guy with a rookie. I sometimes get two FOs, one just checked out and the other with 500h on type and neither of them has ever been to this place, flown this route. Now I have to get some rest during the 12 hours, don't I? Guess where the OMA has provided my rest in its sublime wisdom? You guessed right, over the Himalayas .....
(don't smartass me about 'then change your rest' or 'then tell the company to give you an expert FO' or other logical consequences: been there, done that, got bashed)


You can put low hours pilots in some cockpits, but not where some companies do it nowadays. The time frame, environment and equippment has to be adequate to learn about airmanship.

In aviation we should never skip steps.
But that is the main occupation of modern management.

[cessnapete]

What Company is this that tells you as a Capt. how you conduct a particular flight en route?
In my Company the LR rest periods (B744) were left for the crew to organise on the day according to their wishes and experience. Taking into account of course any overriding FTL requirements on that particular sector.
Seems a bit heavy handed for management to dictate your in- flight decisions !!

[gadpilot]

Denti
I would imagine that the majors do that so new hires are paired with more experienced captains. Anyone can fly and aircraft when all systems are go. In fact the aircraft is flying you. Just sit and enjoy the ride. What time and experience brings to the cockpit is decision making ability. That comes with time. Being included in many over ones career. Good decisions and bad. Learn from both. I just hope one of those new 200 hour guys or gals does not have a skipper down for the count at night, in weather and heading to somewhere like Wellington on a gusty night.
Again, no one here is assuming to know anything about the AF situation. Lets stick to the topic.

[d105]

Good thread.

A question for those old enough to have seen it happening. At what time did pilot recruitment start to shift towards favoring low hour cadets.

[Oakape]

At what time did pilot recruitment start to shift towards favoring low hour cadets

The time when bean counters & marketing wiz kids took control of airlines & introduced us to the new mantra - Cost reduction is everything! They then linked their renumeration to cost cutting & the death spiral was entered.

Cost cutting is trashing the industry all over the world as the powers that be have cut all the fat away & are now well into the muscle.

[pool]

In many legacy carriers the ab initio programs used 200 to 300h cadets on equipment like 737, DC-9 for a long time already. However they had a thorough training program in house that took the cadets from scratch to the right seat. It took around 18 months minimum. The company philosophy was taught right from the beginning which made everyone talk the same language with the same sop.

That was safe.

The problems started when some of that training was outsourced, due to higher output demand, or when the new perverted breed of managers started the deadly cost cutting in training, as mentioned above.
Suddenly slightly different sops creeped in and the cheaper FBOs hired less experienced instructors, and the downward spiral started.

That's unsafe.

It is mainly at this point when the fakers appeared (see other thread). The low quality training companies didn't check thoroughly, they only wanted the lump sum for a paper and the less they had to fly, the cheaper for everybody. It went so far, that in India a gal got her license from a school without hangar and aircraft ...... (it belonged to Daddy, a regulator!!!!)

I would suggest that you can still put low timers in the right hand seat. The regulation should however demand, that they are trained IN HOUSE with a rigorously supervised syllabus.

Applicants from outside will still be needed, they pose a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
First it's all about training quality and somewhat compatible sops. They would require a thorough and supervised company screening and transition course.
Second it's even more about logged hours honesty. If you would sum up the logged hours on props and jets in India and similarly unsupervised regions, these countries would have needed to triple their aircraft parks.

I admit that it will be a huge challenge to clean up that Augias stable. The main pressure must come from the press and passenger associations, as the airlines, manufacturers and regulators have very little interest to dig deeper into their pockets, or to pull back their greedy hands.

[wiggy]

Rananim

Were 2 FO's at the controls and if so why did Capt plan his rest that way(airmanship)

Not sure why you're dragging the AF accident into a "low hours" thread but FWIW one of the P2's had 3000 hours plus, the other 6000 plus.

If you really do want to go onto the subject of who takes crew rest and when , I'd certainly bear the route forecast in mind when timing breaks but unless there was a forecast of extremely exceptional conditions I'd certainly expect the co-pilots I fly with ( all 1000 hours ++) to be capable of transiting the ITCZ without difficulty.

[Attack Fighter 2]

Why not tell the PM that she has low time RAAF pilots flying her around the world? These guys, mostly under 30 with less than 1000 total time.......they don't see it as a problem. Why should anyone else?

[gadpilot]

Attack Fighter 2.
The RAAF is not bound by ACAA regulations as far as I know. Would you compare private insurance to the National Health scheme . You're comparing apples to oranges. We are discussing Air Transport Ops.

[4dogs]

Attack Fighter 2,

If you replicate the RAAF selection process, the training system, the squadron training and checking arrangements and the level of supervision, pilot categorisation and formal risk management for every flight, then the risk associated with low hour pilots are mitigated as low as reasonably practical.

No airline could or would accept the cost of doing business that way - and that is the problem!

Stay Alive,

[BombsGone]

Attack fighter sounds like he is a stooge for one of the training organizations. His burst is very similar to the arguments they are making to the Australian senate. Once people wake up to the terms and conditions on offer they are unlikely to attract a high level of entrant. Then we come to the quality and depth of training that is provided.

As an aside the junior guys on VIP jets were trained to a very high standard of manual flying skill first with automation being taught later.

[Avenger]

The Authorities set the criteria for undertaking a Type Rating, there is no requirement to be high hours and training experience shows that actually low hours pilots perform better in the type rating than high time pilots perhaps with embedded procedures they find difficult to shake off. Off course, in the actual MCC environment the previous experience can make line training a smoother process as many day to day things have been seen before.
When BA had the cadet process and you stood 1/600 chance of getting in, I don't recall all the nonsense being spouted then, surely some of this is frustration from experienced guys that cannot find work or are being hoop jumped by the low timers. The basic fact is all pilots start as low timers and it is much safer to learn in a disciplined MCC environment that flapping around in a C150, straying into controlled airspace and generally being a pain in the arse. The question of airlines properly supervising low timers and ensuring a compatible cockpit gradient is another matter, and without doubt, some of the Indian companies seem to be allowing inexperienced guys to effectively single crew while some jurasic Captain snores his way around Asia.

[fireflybob]

As one who was a cadet pilot with 250 hours in 1971 on the Boeing 707, one major difference between now and then is that you often had 4 or 5 crewmembers on the flightdeck - Captain, Senior First Officer (who also had a Flight Nav Licence), Flight Engineer and the new Second Officer.

As SO in the first 2 years or so you spent quite a lot of time observing the operation being flown by the two very experienced pilots and the FE and assisting with such tasks as getting the met and jumping in the L/RHS when the a/c was in the cruise especially across the oceans and/or when the Capt or SFO or even FE were taking a break.

Also in those days you had a restricted take off/landing card which was progressively derestricted as you gained more experience and underwent more landing training.

You were mentored by very experienced pilots/engineers and learned much in the process and observed, most of the time, how the operation was professionally run.

Now we give the new pilot a quick MCC course and he is thrown in the RHS on the line and expected to cope with a whole myriad of challenges. In the circumstances, given the environment we now operate in with increased traffic densities, some punishing schedules, the burden of huge bank loans, and the erosion of Ts and Cs I think most of them do a mighty fine job!

[Attack Fighter 2]

:OWell I did not realise my post would create so much heat.....in reply to BombsGone I take offence to the suggestion that I am somebodys stooge. I am a retired Airline Captain with 20000 hrs flight time. Re the RAAF situation....I saw a lot of them come across to the Airline I was with.....I did not see any stand out aces amongst them. They all must have gone to the opposition.....why is it that some pilots can only justify there attitude by scare mongering....eg the comment about going into Wellington on a dark night......You fly the aircraft through the sky to a 45 metre wide chunk of concrete...where it is is irrelavent. Just about every situation (not all) is covered by a checklist. Co-pilots have to demonstrate competency in simulators many times a year....how many Commercial jets have we lost in this country??........How many have the RAAF lost??.....The difference between RAAF and Airlines is that RAAF pilots crash planes and kill pilots.....take the B707 case as an example.....I am not here for an argument.....just stating things as I see them. CASA is the safety Regulatory body.......do they see a problem?? Have a nice day everone....:O

[BombsGone]

Attack Fighter 2, you use a military sounding handle for your first post, and then attack the military with your second? Your conduct in two posts hardly engenders respect. You may not be any ones stooge but it still sounds like you have a vested interest.

The 707 was not the RAAF's finest hour by any stretch, it was at its heart caused by a loss of experience to the airlines. The RAAF also had a relatively high accident rate through to the late 90's, operations were far more aggressive than required and not always in a smart way. The continued and rapid loss of experienced captains to the airlines did not help. Australian commercial airlines on the other hand have an excellent safety record anchored around a high standard of entrant and high experience levels. Whilst the RAAF has lifted its game significantly in the last 15 years, and safety stats back me up here, commercial aviation appears to be headed in the opposite direction.

As for CASA, I have seen very dodgy practices in commercial aviation that CASA turns a blind eye to. To quote a CASA official "we are not a safety organisation, we are a regulator".

[victor two]

Here we go again...........same whinge from the disgruntled masses who feel like they should get $500K a year to work three months a year flying an automated jet!

Some reality -
- The airlines are happy with the arrangements
- The cadets or trainees are obviously happy with the arrangements, let them worry about the training costs and bonds in any case.
- The regulators on both sides of the tasman are happy with the arrangements
-Passengers really could not care about who is up front or what they get paid as long as they get a cheap fare when they want it.
- It's totally legal and it will continue to happen
- It's called running a business and surviving competition
- It has not been proven to be such a high risk that it has stopped and despite your juvenile claims that "all management are penny pinchers" airlines do employ some pretty clever risk managers and human factors analysts to make these decisions when they place the lives of a few hundred people at risk. It's not all based on money guys - the flying game has changed, you just dont want to hear it!

[BombsGone]

Victor two, honestly I agree with the position that if its safe and cost effective it should be legal. I don't however share your faith in the risk managers or the regulator. There are aspect to the Jetstar scheme in particular that are concerning, as others have articulated.

Are you the same person as Attack fighter 2? Just asking as you seem to have a similar tone.

[Attack Fighter 2]

Attack Fighter 2 here once more. I am certainly not Victor two, however I concur with his sentiments. I had six years in the RAAF before going to Airlines and I can tell you I would rather have a 25 yo with all his reflexes and quick mind in charge than a 55 yo who all he has done in his life is fly from one ILS to another with both auto pilots engaged......As a check captain I observed that the younger co-pilots performed a lot better than older pilots in command.........If you sit in the back seat of a simulator for some time you will see this time and time again. You can teach monkeys to fly. It is the only profession where joe public can go fly an aeroplane on weekends....I can't practice dentistry or medicine on weekends. Airline flying is easy... dull and boring, but easy. Try single pilot IFR in a muli-engine turboprop.....now thats a challenge. I recall flying one time with a new co-pilot.....he flew the first leg.......the aircraft was on rails all the way.....later I asked what experience he had.........he informed me that this was the first flight since being checked to line........I was blown away.....I have flown with new cadets and in the main they are absolutely brilliant.....these are the same age group guys that fly the PM around. When she visits the flight deck I don't think she would be too concerned to see these young switched on guys taking her around the world.......happy flying...

[Attack Fighter 2]

In reply to GadPilot......If you find flying into Wellington in dark gusty conditions dual auto pilots engaged difficult, then I think you are in the wrong business. Take a look at the Cairns 33 LOC approaches.....:O

[BombsGone]

Attack Fighter 2, sorry having read your posts I don't believe you were ever in the military and are miss representing yourself. I don't disagree with all your sentiments but I'll call a spade a spade when I see one.

Feel free to PM me your course number and a few details and I'll withdraw this assertion.

[Attack Fighter 2]

Bombsgone.....You should read threads carefully. Never said I was a pilot in the RAAF. However .....Joined 13 Feb 67 discharged 12 Feb 73. Served in 5 sqn, 1 bocu, 2 Sqn, Vietnam Veteran. Butterworth posting. I march on Anzac day with 2 Sqn.....

[BombsGone]

Attack Fighter 2 thank you for clarifying your position for everyone. Your posts were misleading at best, your time in the RAAF has no bearing on your ability to comment on what qualifies as good flying training, so you should never have mentioned it. The accident rate in GA in Australia has never been better than average so comparisons between GA and High Capacity RPT are also misleading.

So by retired airline captain do you mean captain of multi engine pistons perhaps? :)

[treykule]

Well, attack fighter. I am impressed.

Your age shows as 51..That means you were born in 1960.
And you served in the forces..vietnam? From 1967 to 1973. Odd I never heard about you, because military pilots under the age of 13 were quite rare back then.
And you are retired now..At age 51. with 20 ooo hrs. And check pilot time...
You have had a heck of a career.

The fact is, that technology is fast replacing humans. Yes, there will be accidents caused by advanced technology. And they will be tragic and sensatinal. But they will eventually prove to be safer than the sum total of accidents caused by pilot error. The problem is we are still referring to these kids as First officers. What they are is Captain's assistants.
Once everyone understands that they are not expected to ever be able to command or even fly the plane without supervision, we can get on with the evolution of aviation.

I find it hard to believe, people comparing military flying with commercial transport ops..

[Mikehotel152]

@treykule

Perhaps you ought to re-read your post and reflect on the what you have said:-

The problem is we are still referring to these kids as First officers. What they are is Captain's assistants.
Once everyone understands that they are not expected to ever be able to command or even fly the plane without supervision, we can get on with the evolution of aviation.

Inspired by a glass of chardonnay?