PDA

View Full Version : So, FAA training bad, JAA training good?


fibod
17th Apr 2002, 20:54
Minus273 raised some interesting points on this thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50051&pagenumber=2) about FAA instructors. I have experience with working with both the FAA and JAA systems, and I think it is important that people who may be considering FAA training, or training with a school that uses low hours instructors, understand the difference between the JAA and FAA systems.

In the US, student pilots will pay for their own training. On completion they will be issued with a FAA licence and be unemployable as an airline pilot. Somehow, they have to build their hours until they reach the minimum requirements for a regional airline or FAR Part 135 operator. The traditional route is to become an instructor. Under normal circumstances they will become competitive for a FO job with a regional airline when they have 1500 hours. Until Sep 11th last year, this total time requirement was dropping under supply and demand pressures. A pilot will not normally be considered for a FO job with a major airline until they have >5000 hours.

One of the reasons that training in the US is cheap is because there is a never ending supply of low hours instructors, willing to work long hours for little pay to build their experience. Similarly inexperienced instructors probably trained them. A similar situation exists in the UK at the PPL/flying club level.

There is nothing wrong with this system. The safety records and professionalism of the US airlines is not in question, testimony to the system working well. I have met both very able and very incompetent instructors in both systems.

In the UK, and other parts of the world, the route to an airline job can be different, although it is possible to follow a similar path to that I have described above. A pilot can train in the UK at a commercial flight school, staffed largely by experienced instructors (career instructors, or those who have retired from the military or airlines, with 1000s of hours flying and instructing experience behind them), and get a FO job with a major airline with less than 300 hrs TT. The student or an airline may pay for the training. Clearly, the training has to be first rate, and the student pilot has to possess the ability to learn at a very fast rate. Without very able and experienced instructors and able students, this is not a realistic goal. Experienced and able career instructors cost a lot to employ.

The mistake many wannabes make is that they expect to be able to go straight into a major airline without the benefit of the "right" training. Like most things in life, you get what you pay for. A mistake most of the commercial schools make is that they attempt to train prospective commercial pilots who do not possess the aptitude or personality to achieve their employment aspirations on graduation from training. This results in very disgruntled graduates who cannot understand why they cannot get a job.

It's horses for courses - the airlines are full of good pilots who took a long time to get there, making up with experience what they lacked in natural aptitude. However, to go from zero hours to the RHS of a modern jet airliner in 300 hours & 18 months, you not only have to be good, but you need the best training available, and that doesn’t come from a school manned by low hours instructors, and it doesn't come cheap.

englishal
18th Apr 2002, 08:15
Hmm...I'd rather have a FO with 1500 hrs than a FO with 300 hrs if I was a passenger.....

When I did my IR in the US, the instructor had his ATPL, and just over 1500 hrs...he was aged 27. When I did a cross channel checkout last year in the UK, the instructor had come from OAT and had just finished his FI course a week before, he was 21 and had about 300 hrs.

So I don't think you can draw a line between FAA and JAA so clearly, there will be good and bad pilots which ever country you're in, its just that under JAR some of these low hour pilots are often given the opportunity to fly passengers whereas in the US this is very unlikely to happen.

Cheers
EA

Wee Weasley Welshman
18th Apr 2002, 10:03
Since 1960's Hamble days BA have taken cadet FO's with 200hrs straight onto jet aircraft at Heathrow. Many airlines followed in their path.

There has NEVER been an incident in which the low hours of the FO has been mentioned as a factor.

QED


WWW

minus273
18th Apr 2002, 14:01
Just because an instructor has 1000's of hours does not make him a good instructor.

Just like I am sure you remember when you were at school the teachers that used to put you to sleep, they were probably a mixture of young and old, experienced and inexperienced.

The key thing for any instructor is for them to be motivated and want to teach. Just because you know lots of information does not make you a good instructor, that would be someone who is able to impart this knowledge to his students. And vary it for different students as their needs are realised.

If they have none of the above then they will not be a good instructor.

Just my two pennies worth.

Minus273

Oh there have been accidents that involved low time pilots, that is why they bought in CRM to stop the captain being the sole descion maker on the flight deck.

Captain right low time FO wrong.

Captain to FO "oh what is that mountain goat doing up here in the clouds" Taken from a Far Side Cartoon I think.

The Naked Pilot is a very interesting book on accidents based on senarios like that.

fibod
18th Apr 2002, 17:43
englishal, you are right, there are exceptions in each system. BTW, I wouldn't regard an instructor with only 1500 hours as very experienced.

minus273, you are right as well; it takes more than experience to make a good instructor. As a generalisation, I have found that hours building instructors tend to be more motivated by their own aims (building hours) than their students. In contrast, career instructors, or those who have turned again to piston engine instructing following a full military or airline career tend be highly motivated by the craft of instruction and get a kick out of helping their students achieve their aims (the first step in an airline career).

There are exceptions in each camp, as I'm sure someone will quote. Remember, I didn't say either system was better than the other. I merely pointed out if someone expects to get a job in the RHS of a Boeing or Airbus within 18 months of starting flying, they are well advised to choose their training well. It is no coincidence that the airlines who sponsor students with the intention of putting them straight into jet airline operations do not choose to save money by putting them through the cheaper schools. They also select their students very carefully, and are able to pick from a large pool of highly motivated applicants.

Slotted-Flap
18th Apr 2002, 18:59
The reasons cheaper schools arent used by airlines may have nothing to with the quality of training. Maybe these schools dont have the facilities to train 200 cadets? Or maybe they werent cheap enough. You dont honestly think BA payed OATS the same 50k per head as a self sponsored pilot would? No chance. The price definately does have to be right.

As far as JAA training being the best in the world. Bollocks! The reason pilots with 300hrs get airline jobs here is simply because of supply and demand. Not the 'superior' training. Many countries, USA for example, have a GA infrastructure that is far more accessable, consumer friendly and cheaper for the common man. This instantly creates a much larger pool of potential pilots. Resulting in the long run in higher requirements. Lots of pilots=not many jobs=higher requirements. likewise: not many pilots=lots of jobs=lower requirements.

I am sure recently many 300hr pilots from the 'best' training in the world are sitting down right now, reading this, without a flying job. Why? Because they no longer have the required experience as the bar has been raised.

Still Flappin':p

BEagle
19th Apr 2002, 04:30
Unfortunately the CAA's eagerness to embrace the Eurocratic nonsense of JAR/FCL without listening adequately to the industry's concerns has made it much more difficult for anyone engaged in flight instruction. All aspects of PPL-level training are now vastly more expensive and there is not much interest from flying schools for anything more than the minimum number of FIs they can afford. Otherwise they'd price themselves out of business.

Many people would like to instruct in low-time piston singles from a well maintained aerodrome, have a 9-to-5 day and make £30K+ per annum. But costs are so high now that this is an unacheivable aim. Perhaps if the UK, in common with the rest of Europe, didn't pay VAT on training, if we only required PPL instructors to hold Class 2 medicals, if we still had the BCPL and self-improver route, if maintenance costs hadn't shot up over the last few years as well as insurance costs........

So it's down to struggling newcomers helping out the few remaiming 'old-timers' in aircraft with 20 000+ hrs from rapidly deteriorating WW2 aerodromes to try to attract people into the world of aviation........or they'll go elsewhere where they can learn quicker and cheaper - with no regard for the quality of that training.

Thank you so much, CAA!!

PAIFAgofer
19th Apr 2002, 18:52
Actually there has been an ACCIDENT with a low hour F/O, namely the Gulf Air crash in BAH. I believe the F/O was very low time, and basically sat there while the captain flew the aircraft into the water. Incidentally, the Captain was very low time on the 320 and that was probably a factor...so argue as you choose.
However, I hold both FAA and JAA licenses (ATP and ATPL) with a CFI/II/MEI and FI. I teach in the US for a major european airline, and to be honest, both systems have ups and downs. However, thismajor european airline takes instrcutors with 200 hours dual for FAA guys, and raw for JAR license holders. I must admit that the JAA has a higher standard for circuit flying, while the FAA have a better IR program (if you do it in the twin). Ups and downs, thats all there is to it.

WX Man
19th Apr 2002, 18:59
I have to say, WWW, although QED on that one I don't like the status quo in the EU.

As a user, I much prefer the self-perpetuating system in the USA. In fact the state of flying training in the EU has been such to put me off being a pro pilot in the EU forever. If I ever do it will be abroad.

The JAA could do worse than to take a leaf out of the book that the people who make the Ab Initio courses for ATCOs have been reading. I can see relevance in nearly every single sentance in every single lesson I attend.

Hope to talk to you soon...

Slotted-Flap
20th Apr 2002, 11:47
Did the Britannia flight that skidded off the runway in crap conditions at Malaga have a 250hr FO? If so was this a factor? If not I apologise.

Still Flappin':p

Wee Weasley Welshman
20th Apr 2002, 13:32
Apology accepted.

And it was Gerona and a Captains landing.

WWW

shifatur
20th Apr 2002, 17:53
hey guys.........

biman bangladesh has been recruiting pilots with 200 hours of flight time, straight out of the flight schools and all of them found themselves flying the bae a.t.p/fokker f-28 after their initial friendship with Cessna.

how many accidents in total? think 2 fatal since 1972, and wasnt due to low hours of f/oS. poor maintenance, torn-out aircraft could be attributed to the reasons......

95% of these pilots came from local flight schools........didnt have either j.a.a/f.a.a cpl/ir

there is a clear distinction between british education and american system......both has + and - ss........

for the sake of argument, i would vouch for f.a.a for a guy wishing to embark into the fascinating world of commercial aviations......more exposure to simulators, good/rough weather.....etc.....so does europe, for sure........but if i were to choose between j.a.a and f.a.a, i would go for f.a.a........

i am only 19.......guys.....help me out.......

lufthansa training center has stopped taking foreign pilots.....any other schools in europe? visa to america is virtually impossible......

take care
shif