Things have to get worse before they can get better [Archive]

Greenlights

7th Mar 2014, 17:43

Well that is the first time I have ever been accused of wearing rose coloured glasses .

I was teasing you Big Piston ;)

I guess I find it hard to believe that there is an unlimited supply of people so deluded that they are OK with a deal where you will pay 120+ grand for your training and then work for free

Well, I am not so surprised, because nowadays youngs brainless (sorry I am harsh but I do not have sympathy for those people) people even PAY for flying in a right seat.
So, if we consider this, flying for free (you dont pay) would be awsome for them.
You get my point ?

Today they pay, tomorrow they won't. => awsome ! :D

Most of them are passionnate meaning that you do not think with the brain but you manage your life with the heart. (irrationnal).
This explains why people will still fly for free or for crap salaries even if they would be homeless by the end of the career (yeah because it will be harder and harder to buy a house with those terms and conditions).

Extra Fuel

7th Mar 2014, 19:12

When I moved to Sweden back in the late 80's, there was an ongoing scandal among the pilot community involving a guy who had had his medical revoked for having spent too much on flying training. He was judged by his AME as having inappropriate cognitive skills for a career as a professional pilot (no criticism of his flying ability, as far as I remember).

But that was in the good old days of course

ETOPS240

8th Mar 2014, 01:49

The answer to your question perhaps lies in examining what it took for the US authorities to implement those rules; sadly, that's a smoking hole in the ground - somewhat attributable to working conditions and experience.

Too little, too late for those involved.

Three Lions

8th Mar 2014, 15:23

Things will not change dramatically whilst there is so much money involved in the training of new pilots.

Flying Clog

8th Mar 2014, 15:34

Yes, sadly, things will only change with a smoking hole in the ground somewhere in Euroland.

I just hope that it isn't me or one of my mates sat in the left seat with some numpty in the right seat whoring himself and not being able to find his way out of a wet paper bag when the excrement hits the wall.

Let's not forget about the passengers, but they're just collateral damage that will hopefully result in the bean counters and utter bar steward CEOs going straight to hell and burning there eternally.

Bealzebub

8th Mar 2014, 16:31

One or two people would do well to breath into a paper bag!

"Smoking holes?" If you want to read reports that fluttered out of those, fill your boots. There are decades and decades worth, mostly involving very experienced crews. Safety has improved in leaps and bounds with advances in technology and a greater introspection into the non-technical elements of crewmember performance.

The breathless often cite "Colgan" and "AF447" as their "evidence" yet as RexBanner has pointed out neither of these accidents had an inexperienced pilot in the flight deck. However that inconvenient fact rarely gets in the way for the exponents of this drivel.

Inexperienced but well trained pilots have been part of a cadet cadre for many, many, years now. It has been a tried and tested concept for many airlines since the Sixties. The steep learning curve that comes with the airline phase of a cadets training rather precludes the "numpties" from advancing much further. So with Fifty odd years of this training regime, where are all the "smoking holes?"

On the other hand, if you want to talk about poor CRM, lack of situational awareness, automation complacency, poor fatigue management, CFIT, and sloppy use of procedures, then I can point you to a veritable moonful of craters for you and your mates to wring your hands over.

polax52

8th Mar 2014, 16:55

Beazlebub- I am sure you are a really experienced guy yourself and I respect your opinion. However I do disagree, even though I have only the Britannia 1999 Girona incident to demonstrate the point.

I m sure you have noticed that as you have got older and more experienced you have become a safer Pilot. It therefore stands to reason that companies selecting more experienced Pilots will achieve an overall higher standard of safety.

You talk about the cadet system going now for fifty years. This is true but I remember 25 years ago that he initial instrument rating failure rate was 90%, and that was after selection. Now the pass rate is about 90% and the only selection is does Mummy have the money.

Bealzebub

8th Mar 2014, 18:20

Thank you Polax52.

I am not sure what point the "BY" accident at Girona demonstrates? In that accident (I was flying about 200 miles West of GRO that night and remember the proliferation of thunderstorms over the Pyrenees,) the Commander who was PF at the time of the landing accident had 16,700 hours of which nearly 3600 hours were on type. The F/O had 1500 hours of which 1145 hours were on type. As I recall the accident report addressed a lack of Go around training from below decision height, but nothing relating to the training or experience levels of the F/O that was contributory to the accident? With nearly 1200 hours on type the F/O would be approaching something akin to two years worth of experience, and if he was a cadet at that time, would likely have been on the cusp of no longer being so, as his ATPL would have been close to becoming "unfrozen." However again, nothing in the accident report suggested a correlation between his experience levels and the contributory causes to that accident.

I would be extremely surprised if the IR failure rate was 9 out of every 10 candidates. However if I accept the premise, it would be worth remembering that 25 years ago most of the applicants for that rating would have been "non approved" (todays modular) CPL holders or PPL holders who would, (in those days even more than now,) have made up the vast bulk of applicants. Today the pass rate may be much higher but I doubt the criteria is "does Mummy have the money" any more than it was then.

I m sure you have noticed that as you have got older and more experienced you have become a safer Pilot. It therefore stands to reason that companies selecting more experienced Pilots will achieve an overall higher standard of safety I think that we all like to think that, but sometimes experience can be a prop that is used to substitute for awareness. It is therefore something to be wary of. I remind myself every time I walk from the car park into the crew room that almost every accident that ever happened started with a crew doing just this, and thinking they were experienced, safe, and ready for anything. So many, many, accidents since the start of the jet age and certainly before, occurred to crews with impressively high levels of experience and often in both seats. Sometimes of course that was a part of the problem.

I have been involved with our own cadet programme since it started over 15 years ago. Like many captains, I was very sceptical and wary at the start, of just how this was going to be incepted and how it was going to evolve. It started at about the same time that CRM was becoming a requirement (and growth industry) in the UK, although the USA had brought in these programmes some years previously. The thing that stood out for me with these new cadets, was just how ingrained these CRM concepts were in their ab-initio training. The ability to question, the flattening of authority gradients, and the awareness of their own limits, was something that particularly stood out. These cadets were fast learners, and in many ways their understanding of the non-technical aspects of the occupation was something that caused"experienced" pilots (such as myself) a reversal of the learning roles. Fifteen (plus) years later, I can say that of all the concerns I have on a day to day to day basis, flying with cadets is a very long way down the list, and for good reason.

As for experience... well, those cadets of 15 years ago are now todays 11,000 hour captains, training captains, and management pilots. What they learned at the start and through the intervening 15 years, continues to provide todays high levels of safety. Provided they continue to maintain high degrees of awareness, self progression and critique, so they pass that on to the generations of pilots that follow up through the ranks. I think there is a certain arrogance and complacency in saying "I am a safe pilot," but if that were true, I am quite certain that todays well trained and mentored pilots are likely to be better.

polax52

8th Mar 2014, 18:47

I don't, believe that I mentioned anything about being a safe Pilot. I take the view that both you and I are safer Pilots with the experience we have. I would hope that we are aware that complacency could be an issue and we try to avoid it. I would imagine that your cadets from 15 years ago are safer now and have improved skills and judgment than they did when you first flew with them.

That simply is my point, if you aim to hire the most experienced Pilots you can then you will be hiring people who have reached a higher point of personal development and that generally will be safer.

I know that does not fit the concept which the British fto's would like but it is the safer way.Twenty years ago when the main form of training was "self improver", the current type of FTO would have been the better option. Now that most people have been through structured training to obtain a license it makes no sense to ignore experience or personal development.

Neptunus Rex

8th Mar 2014, 19:09

Experience

What do you call the guy who graduates bottom of his class at Medical School?

"Doctor!"
:8

Bealzebub

8th Mar 2014, 20:14

Polax52, it is an interesting debate because I agree with you to some extent and disagree to some extent. It depends where we are setting the volume control.

Although the previous reply was focused on cadets and low experience pilots, we (as a company) recruit a balanced portfolio of pilots from three sources. The cadets (low experience) come from full time integrated courses provided by one of the major FTO's. The other two sources are "experienced pilots." These are usually pilots with at least a few thousand hours of relevant airline experience. This group divides into two sub-groups. Experienced type rated pilots and experienced non-type rated pilots. Alongside the latter, the third group (also usually non-type rated) are the Military career changers.

It would be extremely rare to find "problem" pilots within any of these groups. All sources are well trained and the transition is invariably an easy one. Modern notech and CRM training tends to eliminate what used to be the occasional and very rare difficulty with the switch from a military background to a civilian training environment. Experienced pilots from other airlines are usually seeking personal career advancement or employment following redundancy for whatever reason. In any event the training background from the usual and preferred sources is (of course) invariably similar to our own.

However, experience does not automatically equate to safety as I am sure you would agree, and given that my next flight will be with a pilot from any of these backgrounds, I have no concerns on any score.

Turning that clock back 20 years you didn't find "self improvers" with 250 hours turning up on a Monday morning. Why? Simply because there weren't any. In those days the minimum (non-approved) hour requirement for a CPL (in the UK) was 700 hours. Even then, this was not a benchmark qualification for most airlines. Most "self improvers" reached this plateau and then used it to spring their way through G.A, air taxi, third and second tier airlines, to eventually get themselves the 2000-3000 hours that was often the first interview ticket for the Jet operators. Despite this experience, it has to be said that where "problems" did arise it was nearly always through this group. Given the often fractious and variable backgrounds that was perhaps not particularly surprising. Having said that, those "problem" cases probably averaged around 20% of which maybe 5% were beyond cost or time effective redemption.

Then of course there are a number of very proficient F/O's who do not make the grade deemed "command standard." Of course these become very experienced pilots, and very experienced F/O's. However does that "personal development" make them safer? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no! There can be occasions when it becomes problematic, and certainly it is something that you would want to try and avoid importing.

The group (and it is a very big group) who are left out of all of this, are the new 250 hour CPL holders, who thought the two thirds reduction in basic hours requirement, was their ticket to the stars. However improved the modular syllabus, it is often still a fractious, un-mentored and highly variable background. The CPL is now basically an "aerial work" licence in much the same way as it always has been in the USA and most other countries. It is the basic requirement to be a flying instructor, (previously a PPL would satisfy that requirement in the UK,) and embark on the stepping stone jobs. The reduction from 700 hours to 250 hours simply opened the floodgates to thousands and thousands of wannabes whilst at the same time many of the traditional "stepping stone" jobs started to disappear. For an airlines cadet programme they want what they perceive as the best, not least because they are not paying the cost of that initial training. Even if they were, they view these courses as surety for the standard of cadet that they want. They can monitor (and mentor in some cases) the entire basic training regime in a way no other system provides.

pitotheat

8th Mar 2014, 21:52

I can only speak for ezy but in the last year or so there has been an improvement. Once selected there is a clearly defined path through cadetship to first officer to senior first officer to captain. Pay rises as the pilot progresses. Once a permanent contract is awarded a host of benefits become available including a wide range of bases. Command opportunities are still good compared to many companies and you are employed by one of the most secure airlines in the world.
For cadets we are a good bet, I feel we have yet to properly open ourselves up to ex military, TP and flying instructor candidates. I believe there will be more picked up in the next batch of recruitment.
Things have changed in the last 5 years with much of the training/cost risk transferred to the individual. But the flip side; I left a secure job with good T&Cs 15+ years ago and against the advise of many friends and family joined a fledgling upstart of a company which kidded itself it could take on the established European flag carriers. Few people gave easyJet much hope and derided those who took the gamble. There is rarely a guarantee in life. My risk was throwing a good career away to join easyJet; today's gamble is to invest in yourself to earn an opportunity.
It is all too easy to become negative about the pilot market nowadays but the truth is that there are many times more jobs now than 5,10,15+ years ago so what are you going to do to make it happen?

MichaelOLearyGenius

8th Mar 2014, 22:33

Yes 50% of doctors end up in the bottom of the class.

Anyway, what's best, integrated or modular?

Cliff Secord

8th Mar 2014, 22:37

The pros and cons of Low experience. The 2 camps. Those talking of smoking holes (I wince when I hear that it's a bit daily mail). Those liberally talking up how wonderful cadets are, trainable alert pups. How the experienced guys can be bad old dogs too, with unchangeable spots. Its all a bit blurry and hard to generalise. Call me old fashioned but exceptions aside on the whole the more experienced guys have been there/seen it more. It's why TREs aren't cadets, you can't emulsion over that stuff. As a young guy when I got to that stage where you feel a bit sure having got your eye into the job, you know all the books, have read about lots of stuff and consider yourself a sharp young dog and a bit up to speed only to find myself in a situation where I learned off the experienced guy and got bumped back to ground, realising you can't fast track that stuff.

What you don't hear about is how experience helped in such and such a situation and the low hour guy learned that day or came away a little less sure of his hithertoo bulletproof self assured abilities. Or conversely how the long in the tooth guy thought he knew it all then had some new SOP pointed out to him by a new fella. We've all been there it works both ways.

I don't think it's really it to be honest. I think all the talk of smoking holes is just people venting their annoyance. It's easier to talk of smoking holes- shouldnt the authorities step in bla bla, than basically admit what really is getting right up a lot of people's nostrils. With thousands of hours and flying on the wrong type you can't join bla airline yet such and such with a large funding stream, through CTC can see himself through to the front row seats at BA for example but said BA will not take on the direct guy. The game has changed, years ago you did your time on smaller stuff and took your Blinking turn like we all did. When BA took cadets they still took DEP, same with other airlines.

I try to be impartial, it is what it is and you've got to deal with it. I sure wish I had 80 odd grand and no experience if it meant I stood a chance of joining the worlds favourite at the minute :O. Maybe I should burn my licence and logbooks ;)? Actually if I had 80 odd grand I'd spend it on my kids future but I'm an old git

aa73

9th Mar 2014, 17:59

In this industry, nothing replaces experience. Experience is gained through hundreds, if not thousands of hours, of flying different aircraft of various complexity through adverse conditions and various abnormal conditions before progressing to the ranks of "airline cadet." In my book, an airline cadet is a multi-thousand hour pilot with years of experience flying as flight instructor, night cargo, air ambulance, etc in all sorts of aircraft. Then, and only then, should they be deemed ready to fly hundreds of passengers. I'm sorry but a 250hr "cadet" has no place whatsoever within the ranks of an airline training department. Those of you who believe it's a good system have simply fallen prey to airline managements' desperate solution to a shortage of QUALIFIED pilots, and the only reason those folks have now made it to 11,000hr training CAs is because they had the good fortune to not experience a life threatening event that required experience they did not have. However, if you want examples of that, look no further than Colgan 3407 and Pinnacle 3701, to name a couple. In both of those cases, had the CA/FOs had the proper seasoning and experience, those crashes would not have happened. I'm not saying accidents don't happen to seasoned experienced airline pilots, but the chances are greatly reduced.

The USA got it right, at least the first stages of it, by requiring 1500hrs and an ATP before flying 121. That's a start. Europe and the rest of the world would be wise to follow...unfortunately it's just a matter of time before something tragic happens to create enough awareness. I'll say it again, low experience has no place in an airline cockpit, folks...and ab-initio programs are by no means a replacement for this.

You want a good ab-initio program? Grab a 3000hr experienced pilot with tons of night/icing/flight instruction/etc, and THEN "sponsor" him/her into an airline. Now you will have a seasoned aviator no stranger to experience who will be slowly immersed into the airline world. The dividends of that are huge. But a 250hr graduate in an A320 or 737 whose CA becomes incapacitated...or worse, flying with a CA that puts them in an unfortunate situation and they don't have the experience nor fortitude to assert themselves to refuse? That is a recipe for disaster. It's just a matter of time, and we've already seen it in the USA.

This is just my humble opinion, but then again I'm a traditionalist and somewhat "old school"... and I believe the past tragedies confirm what I'm talking about.

Greenlights

9th Mar 2014, 19:27

Good point aa73. Am 100% with you too.

some mentionned AF447, yes...did you know the pilots were ex-cadets ? they never flown anything then a game boy plane since their school. They did not even recognise a stall...:oh:
anyway.
Europe has always been late (like many other countries) compared to USA.
I do believe if USA changed their rules, there is a valid point about that.
So, one day, Europe will change their rule to follow USA, as we always have done. It is just a matter of time.
europe "invented "the JAA world, very close to FAA, just one letter changed actually.
You will see, we will adopt same rules. ;)

polax52

9th Mar 2014, 19:50

I couldn't agree more with Green lights and aa73.

Unfortunately this cadet thing is far too engrained particularly in the British aviation culture. Currently it is all about business sense rather than common sense. I doubt anything will change.

Bealzebub makes good arguments in favour of the system but that is because he is part of the system and therefore objectivity is difficult.

My view on how Pilots should be hired is:

- Experience
- verify quality

With cadets you have no experience and verification of quality is difficult.

Bealzebub

9th Mar 2014, 21:50

Bealzebub makes good arguments in favour of the system but that is because he is part of the system and therefore objectivity is difficult. I don't think objectivity is difficult at all. Objectivity is defined as a state or situation where something is based on facts and evidence and the ability to make decisions based on those facts and evidence rather than (your) own feelings or beliefs. I have presented only that evidence that I have factually observed by virtue of my own experience going back at least a decade and a half. I have tried to avoid any feelings or beliefs and rely on what I would consider fact and evidence. That contention is supported by your own statement that the presentation amounts to "good arguments."

If I were going to move away from facts and evidence, I might opine that an Airline Transport Pilots Licence should be the baseline qualification for an Airline transport pilot. Given that this qualification (in the UK, USA, and most other countries) has always had a 1500 hour minimum tariff, that might be regarded as reasonable. The trouble is that it is simply meaningless to the argument. In both of the cited accidents (AF447 & CO3407) not a single one of the crewmembers had less than 1500 hours. The Colgan captain had around 3,300 hours and the first officer 2,200 hours. On Air France the captain had 11,000 hours and the two f/o's 6,600 and 3,000 hours respectively. Not a single one of these pilots would have been precluded by a 1500 hour minimum tariff. The Colgan captain had a history of numerous failed check rides during his training and was regularly commuting some 1200 miles from his home in Florida. The first officer was also regularly commuting 3000 miles from her home in Seattle. Fatigue was cited as a likely contributory factor.

I suppose you could whack up the requirements in the UK to a full ATPL and 1500 hours as a statutory minimum. That would add £70,000 to the ab-initio training bill as you send them off to flog up and down the Florida coastline filling up a logbook. Would that experience make those "cadets" even safer pilots? You might think so, I have doubts that the experience gained would be relevant in most cases. Of course one resultant effect would be to eliminate a huge swathe of hopefuls who would now simply be priced out of the game. £50K plus £70K as against £80K plus £70K.

Experience didn't prevent either of these two exemplar accidents, nor has it prevented hundreds and hundreds of others over the previous eleven decades. On the other hand quality of training /examination and far more relevant training may well have done so. This is what we aim for with our cadet programmes and I am not sure we need to look West for leadership on that score. This is a training regime that has a 50 year pedigree in the UK.

Experience is one of those words rather like discrimination. It comes in good and bad forms but is often mis-used to support a weak argument. Some of the examples given here simply don't provide evidence for the conjecture.

Contacttower

9th Mar 2014, 23:09

The USA got it right, at least the first stages of it, by requiring 1500hrs and an ATP before flying 121. That's a start. Europe and the rest of the world would be wise to follow...unfortunately it's just a matter of time before something tragic happens to create enough awareness. I'll say it again, low experience has no place in an airline cockpit, folks...and ab-initio programs are by no means a replacement for this.

The North American perspective on this cannot really be applied to Europe. If we start to say "one needs 1500hrs" to sit in the RHS of an airliner then where is the candidate supposed to get that experience? They can't all be 200 hour instructors...:ugh::ugh:

As for GA, air taxi etc, don't make us laugh...anything involving MEPs or single pilot is considered much more demanding than going straight out of integrated flight school to an A320. Apart from the fact that other than bizjets commercial GA is almost non-existent now in western Europe.

All you guys talking about "smoking holes" are going to be waiting a long time I think...especially if we are talking about the likes of Ryanair/easyJet. I don't see too many of their planes off runways or at the wrong airport...unlike their equivalents in the US supposedly flown by "experienced" crews.

Surprised someone hasn't blamed AF447 on the MPL yet...:rolleyes:

aa73

10th Mar 2014, 00:24

Contact tower ,

Where do they get that experience? Simple. They get all their ratings up to and including CFI. Then they spend the next year or two flight instructing. Flight instructing is one of the absolute best ways to build PIC confidence when one has low hours. Having to let and watch a student put a plane in a precarious position and learn the skills of when to take over is a priceless commodity that will come in handy much later on, when one is an FO or CA that needs to learn when to step in and when not. It also builds a lot of confidence in the early stages of one's career.

Then - after a year or two of that, one should progress to a more demanding level such as check hauling, night freight, air taxi, ambulance, etc. At that point, our pilot will have much more experience and confidence to be able to handle the more demanding aspects of single pilot 135 ops.

What I'm getting at here is simply that an airline pilot job should be the PINNNACLE of one's career, instead of a starting point, achievable after many years and thousands of hours gaining experience on the building blocks. Think of an airline pilot position as the very top of a pyramid whose foundation is built with the experience I mentioned above. Then, and only then, will your "novice airline pilot" be in a position to act safely as a Crewmember, the safety that all passengers demand. A 250 hour pilot freshly released to the line after an ab initio program is a novice in every sense of the word, and does not belong in that cockpit... I don't care how stringent the program is. There is no substitute for years of experience complete with a few of those "crap, I'm gonna die" experiences we've all had in our careers.

To suggest that a 135 job is a lot more demanding than an airline job may be true in the technical sense, but the airline pilot position carries a LOT more responsibility. However, a 135 job cannot be taken lightly either, and the pilot needs quite a bit of experience to move into one of these jobs as well.

You brought up AF447. Great example... Here we have two graduates of a cadet-type school who had probably never been taught to hand fly a sophisticated airliner at altitude, who did not know how to properly operate the radar in a very TS-prone part of the world. Yet, they promptly put the aircraft in a stall and didn't know how to recover. And yet again, they were "properly qualified", having graduated from ab-initio courses that are so highly lauded. Now, I know that the Airbus-style cockpit and controls may have contributed to this, but again, there is no substitute for experience. I'd much rather have had two FOs up there who had "paid their dues " in the industry flying thousand of hours in all kinds of aircraft/weather, prior to being hired by Air France. And I'll say the same for Ryanair and all the others.

No, I'm not breathlessly waiting for an incident or accident to prove my point; I sincerely hope it never happens again. But I don't need to, because it's already happened, and will happen again. The point here is that we can take steps to proactively PREVENT it from happening again, and that is to require our novice airline pilots to have the required experience first.

The MPL is simply one step further down than the ab initio programs, and represents yet another step in the degradation of our careers. I have SERIOUS issues with this program. It is a recipe for disaster.

Guys, get out there and pay your dues. Get that experience that will more than pay itself off some day in an airline cockpit. Rushing into an airline cockpit is akin to rushing to an accident scene. There is no room for inexperience here. As an example, I had 1500TT when hired into the right seat of a regional airliner, the Jetstream 4100. I had put in several years of flight instruction, charter, air ambulance. And even THEN, it was tough flying and adjusting! Going to the right seat of a multi engine turboprop required EVERYTHING I had experienced and then some. Many times in the beginning I felt overwhelmed. I can't even BEGIN to think how a 250hr pilot would have handled it. Even today, with 11,000hrs, i am still using the basics I learned when teaching a student to land a C152 in a crosswind, in my 737 today. I ESPECIALLY use my weather experience as an air ambulance pilot, in my 737 today. All of that experience translates into the safest flight I can give my passengers today, and I know they're grateful for it. And yet, up until last year we were putting 250hr pilots at Eagle, Colgan, etc. We've seen the results of that haven't we?

I'll conclude with this: I believe that in the pilot profession in Europe and other parts of the world, the "new norm" is to pay your way to the cockpit. Thanks to supply and demand, in conjunction with airlines desperate to cut costs, the airlines can take full advantage and the result is what we have. Believe me, it is absolutely detrimental to the pilot profession and represents a big part of the spiral downward.

aa73

10th Mar 2014, 01:34

Well John again the above is my opinion and nothing more, however, that opinion has been influenced by crashes directly attributed to pilot inexperience. Yes, it's true that today's airlines in Europe have a great safety record, however, it's important to note that many incidents and accidents that HAVE happened to them can also be attributed to pilot inexperience.

Also, I'm absolutely NOT complaining that others had it easier than me: I think it's a dang shame they, too, never paid their dues and lack that part of experience.

Regarding your comment towards passengers not caring about experience...well, I beg to differ, at least in the US. Regardless of their attitudes, though, we owe it to the pax to be always striving to place experienced pilots in cockpits, not 250hr neophytes.

And despite one of the AF447 FOs being a glider/GA pilot, ok so what? What was his prior experience before AF? He still didn't recognize/recover from a stall? Pretty sure he was a cadet too.

Fair_Weather_Flyer

10th Mar 2014, 02:21

I've flown with loads of low hour cadets and have to say that they have all done a great job and none have been out of their depth. However, these have all been carefully selected and had their training monitored from day one. The military has low hour guys fly big jets and why do they not have accidents?

The real problem comes when you hire the lowest common denominator. I'm talking about about taking on pilots because they will pay for training, work for peanuts on a contract;. These are mostly low hour pilots with naive expectations and unshakable optimism. Such pilots appeal to the bean counters that run airlines.

Both the the Colgan and Pinnacle crashes both featured pilots that were graduates of the Gulfstream pay to fly programme. They paid their way into the airlines and had a history of problems. In the UK we had the seemingly forgotten MyTravel accident.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Airbus%20A320,%20G-DHJZ%2012-08.pdf

This airline was, via an agency charging 35k to low hour pilots for a type rating and line training. One of their customers had failed a sim assesment on the 737 so they decided to put him on the A320. After struggling in the sim (landings) and taking two attempts at the base check (landings) , they let him loose with passengers on line training and......he smashed the aircraft so hard into the deck it was investigated by the AAIB and caused serious damage. Turned out from day one in a Cessna he struggled.

As management hammer away at the terms and conditions this is the kind of pilot that the industry will attract. I suspect that the UK will have its own Pinnacle/Colgan style crash and only then will the regulators act and things start to get better.

aa73

10th Mar 2014, 03:05

Fair weather flier, that's exactly the type of pilot I'm talking about, and IMHO it's just a matter of time before the bar is lowered enough to the point where all new entrants are of the type you mention.

I understand that Lufthansa, British, etc adhere to a very strict process in recruiting candidates, and that's a good thing. I still maintain however that jetliner duty should only come after a long seasoning.

John Smith.... A couple of classic examples for you to look at would be Korean Air 2033, where the inexperienced FO fought the CA on landing to go around, resulting in an overrun. Another one would be China Air 676, where the inexperienced FO triggered the Toga levers and then didn't know how to get out of it. Granted, two Asian airlines but again the result of low hour, inexperienced FOs who were likewise "carefully chosen" and graduated from these pilot cadet schemes...and could just as easily happen anywhere.

In the end? I still maintain that the airline piloting profession keeps getting driven down to the lowest common denominator by lowering standards for new hires, up to and including cadet pilot schemes. While these are not as bad as the pay to fly schemes, they are not really that far off. Want to fly for an airline? Go get the experience, it can literally save your life in the long run.

I think when we look at the great safety records of these airlines, we are lulled into a false sense of security, being that "there hasn't been enough of these types of accidents, therefore the process must be safe." All it takes is one and that's too many. We've already had two serious ones here in the USA that could have been prevented by more experience... AF447 may not have been directly caused by inexperience but it sure was a big player. To me that's more than enough of a good example.

Bealzebub

10th Mar 2014, 03:42

AA331 Boeing 737. Capt. 22 years experience including 2700 hours on type. First officer 10 years experience and 5000 hours on type.

AA587 A300. Capt. 8050 hours including 1723 on type. First officer 4400 hours including 1835 on type.

AA1420 MD82. Capt. 10234 hours including 5518 hours on type. First officer 4292 hours including 182 hours on type.

AA965 Boeing 757. Capt.13000 hours including 2260 hours on type. First officer 5800 hours including 2286 on type.

AA1572 MD83. Capt. 8000 hours including 4230 on type. First officer 5100 hours including 2281 on type.

In just 5 major accidents involving perfectly serviceable airplanes since 1995, resulting in 435 fatalities and a further 110 injuries, you have "experienced" and often very experienced crews at the control. Then there is AA1340, AA102, AA70, AA625, AA385, if you want to go back to 1965 and exclude all the accidents attributed to any form of technical or maintenance error or of course an act of terrorism. Not a cadet in sight and more "experience" than you could shake a stick at.

I wonder what you think aa73?

aa73

10th Mar 2014, 05:29

What I think is what I stated above: accidents can and will happen to anyone regardless of experience...such is the nature of our job. But statistically and realistically, experience makes the difference between a non event and an accident. Compare US 1449 with Colgan 3407 just one month later, two accidents with entirely different outcomes thanks to the level of experience.

American had a bad streak in the 90s. USAir did as well. Delta had its share in the 80s. All 3 of these airlines had very experienced pilots at the controls. That is not my point, there is always that possibility that exists; my point is that we can greatly increase safety at the STARTING point of an airline career by hiring experienced pilots instead of neophytes who haven't experienced the real world of flying yet....and the airline world is not the place for that, no matter how good a cadet or an airline program are.

AF447?
China Air 676?
Korean Air 2033?
Colgan 3407?
Pinnacle 3701?
All of these were caused by, or indirectly caused by, weak airmanship by inexperienced pilots. The argument can be made that these maybe wouldn't have happened with more experienced pilots at the controls.

Anyone can nitpick any airline's accident record and pick an argument, but I'm not debating that issue: I'm simply trying to correlate experience with safety. I think that is pretty indisputable. Instead of looking for an easy way into the cockpit based on how much daddy will be paying, get out there and get the experience. I don't see what's wrong with that. Maybe I'm just naive or misinformed by how it's done overseas, but here in the USA we believe that pilots who get tons of experience before taking the controls of a jetliner are the safest bet.

polax52

10th Mar 2014, 06:06

Bealzebub and John Smith. I acknowledge that you are very good at making articulate argument against experience and in favour of these cadet programs. It is clear with the Statistics you have to hand that you have been making these arguments for years.

The problem I have is that what you're saying goes against what I have experienced recently. I have been flying heavy jet aircraft outside of the UK. Many of the F/O's were low hour cadets. It was clear with these guys that there was no real selection. You had roughly 40% of them who were good solid Pilots and 60% whose landings varied from poor to dangerous.

I made the point before but I am going to make it again, when I did my course in the UK in the late 80's, it was very hard to pass the initial instrument rating and the GFT's. Rumour had it at the time that the failure rate was around 90%. I am not sure about the accuracy of that figure but it was certainly a lot higher than it is currently. We have moved towards the 100% pass rate, which just shows that the standard of these cadet courses is headed downward.

With these structured courses no longer being an accurate guide toward quality, the only other measure you have is experience. Again from what I have seen, the experienced Pilots I have flown with have all been of acceptable quality, this statement does not apply to ALL low
houred cadets.

However articulate you are at disparaging experience, in reality on the ground it does not make any sense. Good business sense though, I do understand.

Don't compare Europe to the U.S., the U.S. has it's own problems and it is not apples for apples.

Three Lions

10th Mar 2014, 08:33

Ezy and RYR are doing their level best to turn it into a two tier industry in the BI with cadets paying to get into the top (jet tier) as a majority - the majority is increasing in percentage as we evolve.

The cadet routes into these two Airlines, although not the much maligned P2F in its truest sense of the word, are the nearest thing to have existed as P2F in the BI for a number of years. I suggest this as an obvious arguable point on the basis of the over the top cost on the schemes, and reduced t's and c's involved.

Modular/Unrated/ex Mil/Air Taxi/Turboprop/Instructors making up the bulk of lower tier (the glass ceiling a TP Commander)

Anybody with a modicum of nous can clearly see it is about the money. It is a cash cow dressed up with fancy words and flawed reasoning. I know in my own outfit the background of the new hire doesnt usually dictate too much of a difference in the standard shown.

There are arguements both for and against. Which are articulately laid out and the benefits are clear to see, they do to my mind, however balance each other out, if I were playing devils advocate I could counter that the benefit all the mentoring the training structure structure et al of the integrated route could be balanced out for example, in a very simple arguement by an ex modular students life skills/experience type of thing

There are many guys out there obviously frustrated, you can clearly see this , and totally understand it, in the threads all over this board with the current situation. This frustration unfortunately spills over on occasion and does dilute the arguement

The "cadet structure applauders" who tend to appear in twos and sometimes even threes all over this forum - as stated I have no issue with your perception that this stream is filled with bonuses, but even you guys must have the basic intelligence to see what damage this percentage of this type of recruitment is doing to the industry as whole. It smacks at the very best of "im all right jack".

Superpilot

10th Mar 2014, 09:27

They say cadets make better candidates for teaching how to fly multi-crew commercial jet aircraft. Undoubtedly true. Take any 18 year old and pit them off against a 45 year old, who is going to fair better whilst playing a video game? The young, keen, unadulterated nature of youth is always there ready to be exploited for maximum gains in efficiency whilst being able to offer an apprentice rate salary. Applies to most industries, aviation is not unique.

However, you are comparing opposite ends of the spectrum. It's hardly ever like this. If EZY were to add 10 aircraft to the fleet over the next year therefore needing to hire another 50 FOs, recent trends show they would probably hire 50 cadets instead of 50 type rated FOs with 2 years on the line (1,500 hours) who just got laid off. 10,000 hour non-type rated captains (ready and willing to accept FO positions) would not even be on the radar screen.

There is nothing terribly difficult about flying a modern airliner once you have the experience. If a pilot has 2 years+ experience there is nothing that makes them a worse candidate than a cadet with a zero houred type rating and 100% devotion when it comes to a new job opening. The former could be an ex-cadet from another airline that went bust but is now on the market. The current system means the former will have a very low chance of getting hired by the likes of EZY or FR as those airlines almost exclusively turn towards their partnered schools to hire pilots. So, the likes of Beazle seem to be advocating a system where experience works directly against employability.

So whilst cadet hiring has merits, the level to which two of the largest employers of pilots in Europe go about it results in a very disposable pilot community. When you were young, keen and had £84,000 lying around you were a prime candidate. Two years later with some experience and a set of expectations you are considered damaged goods. Cadet recruitment is 25% to do with finding candidates who can learn much more easily and 75% to do with finding the cheapest source of labour. Forget your misguided comparisons between cadets and old boys. Be more realistic, compare the abilities of candidates with a few years experience and cadets. There is not a major difference, except for a financial one.

no sponsor

10th Mar 2014, 09:47

Bealzebub is a broken record for continually (in 80% of his/her many many posts) talking up the cadet routes via CTC. A good social media marketing tool for that particular organization; the 'advice' is not objective.

Cadets have their place in the world. Should they account for the vast majority of recruitment into the likes of EZY? IMHO the answer is no. Not even BA did that. Cadet recruitment is a money making machine and has an immediate cost benefit and a means for a low paid commodity. It has reduced the value of a pilot and continually erodes the T&Cs for us all.

FlyingEngineer

10th Mar 2014, 10:28

Hear, hear no sponsor. Great post sums the situation up nicely.

Bealzebub

10th Mar 2014, 13:00

"A broken record"? I am not sure I understand what you mean. It is a consistent observation qualified by experience, example and substance, rather than a one line meaningless attempt at rebuttal. I am not talking up anything, nor have I mentioned any organisation in this thread as it hasn't been relevant to the discussion. I have no beneficial connection with any FTO and have made clear what my involvement and basis for comment is many times.

These are observations and explanations of something that exists in fact. If you want to dispute that, argue it, disbelieve it, or object to it, then fine. Otherwise I suggest either ignore it or make a contribution worthy of reading. If that is beyond your comprehension or you simply think I am lying then there isn't much I can do about that.

Good experience is good experience. However as history has shown time and time again, experience isn't a substitute for good training, and is often simply the trail of record leading up to the accident. Substituting a bucket full of experience and life experience for solid, mentored and verifiable training may be the pitch when that is all you have to sell, but more and more airlines are no longer buying it.

That is what I see, that is what I have said. You may describe that as "a broken record" and put your fingers in your ears, but it is a reality, and one that you are only too aware of yourself.

polax52

10th Mar 2014, 13:38

"Solid, mentored and verifiable", I would accept that if it were over a training period of more than 250 hours. Most of which you don't fly if the weather is bad. At the end of this solid mentored verifiable training you are subject to testing standards which are lower than a UK driving test I.e. a pass rate significantly higher.

I also have operated with cadets who have these levels of experience, albeit outside of Europe. Mostly they have not met even the minimum standards that I or my colleagues would have expected.

I would understand the employment of the top 10% of cadets in combination with the employment of suitably experienced Pilots along the lines of what BA have always done.

Cliff Secord

10th Mar 2014, 14:09

I think there's some serious overtalking of these cadets going here. I agree its incorrect to overstate the problem that cadets are an accident waiting to happen as that's not true. But overstating how well trained they actually are and generalising that older experienced guys are somehow less trained and use experience as a sub is equally balls. Cadets arent NASA trained heros. We're more or less given the same training in the UK and jump through the same hoops. They hold the same little over priced baby blue licence we all start with plus they have minimum time behind the wheel. Also experienced guys go through the same recurrent training.

Also some hinting generalisations that experienced guys are somehow less trained and able. You get below average low hour pilots and experienced pilots. However what I have with witnessed there isn't this distinction between switched on young buck and slower less able experienced guy. Some of the smartest switched on guys have been crusty old long haul Captains. The knowledge of little tips and things to consider, their judgment was vast and a cadet could not simply read it all in a book and be trained. You need to see and experience half this stuff to learn.

Like I said its nothing to do with accidents waiting to happen its to do with erosion of terms and frankly flipping annoying. Part of that erosion of terms is undermining of experience. It annoys people who value experience and worked their way up that young guys/girls can short cut their way into such and such airline. Do your time, keep your head down and get in the line thanks. We have to deal with it, fine but let's not overstate things. The experienced thing worked 15 years ago. It's changed due to finance and business not because how wonderful it is to have some 195 hour hero behind the wheel of an airbus.

I know experience is no replacement for training but that applies to cadets through to Captains. The difference is on top of the training the experienced guy has more in his wallet as he has some good old experience. You can train until the cows come home but it's no substitute for getting out in the real world with continued good training as a back up.

Bealzebub

10th Mar 2014, 14:23

I would understand the employment of the top 10% of cadets in combination with the employment of suitably experienced Pilots along the lines of what BA have always done.

Yes, that is pretty much where we are. The training doesn't stop at the CPL and IR flight tests. That is only one hurdle. The integrated training allows for the airlines SOP's and other specific points of emphasis to be embedded into the ab-initio course structure. The monitoring and selection process allows for the selection of the best candidates, and is reflected in the airline advanced portion of the training. BA may have its own title and gloss, but we utilize the same methodology for our cadet input and have done for a considerable period of time, and since the inception of the programme.

That (as I already pointed out) fits into a balanced portfolio of recruitment whereby two thirds (usually) of recruitment is from "experienced" pilot sources. Those sources are a combination of ex-military pilots, and both type and non-type rated pilots from other airlines. Those airlines being companies with recognised and good training regimes of their own, and the successful candidates having CV's, references and interview results that support the contention that they are also the best candidates available for the positions on offer. As an ATO we are not troubled by a candidates lack of type experience if they otherwise present as an excellent candidate. In those circumstances (as with the cadets) we provide that training at no cost to the candidate (albeit there is a 36 month reducing bond period).

Rather like "experience," so "cadet" is defined by the parameters that we accept. It is the quality of training, examination, monitoring, mentoring and history, that makes either of the two words meaningful. It is interesting how so many of the one liners and hear hears that populate these forums decry cadets for their own awful T&C's, yet some of them thought it was perfectly Ok for them to apply in droves to airlines offering such conditions on the basis that it would be a stepping stone to something better. Some have clearly found that the "quality" that suited their earlier ambition is not the "quality" that the airlines with the better T&C's are either looking for, nor need to accept. All very frustrating I am sure!

flyhigh85

10th Mar 2014, 14:23

I disagree to the gentleman who said experience equals more safety. Off course a brand new pilot with just a couple of hundreds hrs there is a potential higher risk BUT as they reach 1000 - 2000 hrs safety becomes more to a personal integrity and the will to follow SOPS, reading and refreshing up on manuals and memory items etc. I flew with many old and highly experienced captains who is not doing that and some do. My point is that after you reach a treshold of lets say 1500 hr on type it is more a personal thing on how structural and professional each pilot behave in the cockpit, you can not just look blindly on how many hrs he got in the sky.

Cliff Secord

10th Mar 2014, 14:43

I didn't say experience equals more safety, Its better than no experience. It's a plus. (yes I know the training too which applies to all). If experience was flat with its benefits then why can't a 1000 hour Pilot command a 777? Even the authorities believe 1500 TT is relevant for command. Most airlines want more for command and not just because of seniority. Look at the requirements for KAL skippers on the 400. If you're just as good after 1000-2000 hours then these airlines clearly have their doubts. It's in the UK they just don't care what experience the monkey in the right seat has as long as they don't have to spend much on the guy and its glossed over as being 'well trained'.

I do agree you can't generalise that experience is a panacea, but let's not reverse the polarity and generalise either that experienced guys are rubbish at sops and checklists and cadets are all wonderfully switched on and can be trained into knowing everything. As mentioned when I first moved onto long haul years ago flying into some dodgy necks of the world it was the experience of the guy next to me that kept us alive not really the training system. You couldnt be predictably trained for some of the things you come across flying into Africa/Asia. This is more about annoyance at the UK system of late than anything to do with gross safety concerns I think.

RAT 5

10th Mar 2014, 16:55

The on-going discussion about experience v safety v skills: Inherent maturity has a part; attitude to the job; self criticism and discipline etc. Presumably that was covered by all the mind boggling tests and assessments one has to survive in the modern PC selection process. However, in today's new order money buys the type rating; outside the major/legacy carriers the recruitment process may not delve so deeply into the characteristics of the individual; skills are taught and tested as per the minimum requirements. SOP's will be extensive, learned and followed.

A few decades ago the skill element was much to the fore-front. Airmanship, decision making on a daily basis was required and expected. The company had some SOP's loosely based on FCTM and the company had a culture. The DFO expected the captains to take the company's a/c out and back, do a sound safe economical job and pass on the same to the apprentice F/O's. After 6-7 years, at average annual rates, and after having banked sufficient respectable prof checks, your name popped up for command consideration. "OK lad, show us what you've got, and if it's not enough we'll bring you up to scratch because we think you are suitable material." Thank God the trappers & choppers had been put out to grass. Airmanship and understanding of the FCTM was the first SOP. Company idiosyncrasies were not so intrusive, but gave a better understanding of what the other fellow was going to do and when, especially if he was a stranger. Style was still possible. SOP's & FCTM procedures also gave a legal safety net to crews.
Now, some SOP manuals are as thick as bibles and treated the same. Do not be a blasphemer; and even worse a heretic. An SOP guru could therefore behave like they've had an experience transplant and pass a command check at half the hours and time served. Skill? So much is on autopilot that manual handling skills are not the same priority. Decision making? Often the QRH will take care of that and just put the a/c safely back on terra ferma will suffice. Good command decision making, often, is not about technical failures covered in QRH's; it is about looking at the big picture and making a plan of action about a/c, pax, location, repairs, etc. etc.
So does experience mean more safety? Not necessarily; but it might mean less going wrong and better solutions when it does.

aa73

10th Mar 2014, 16:56

^^^ spot on, Rat 5. The emphasis on hands on flying is slowly going away. Thank God that most major airlines in the USA still put a heavy emphasis on hands on flying...that's a major issue with many other countries where A/P use is required for just about everything. Indeed, many SOPs that required good judgment in the past are now "lawyered up" and taken down to the lowest common denominator (read: idiot proof.)

After reading though the posts, I think I agree mostly with what was said above, "the erosion of terms"...I.e., the lowering of the bar as we go forward when it comes to training and hiring. The airlines have to address the upcoming shortages and we here in the US are worried that, at some point in the future, pilots will be hired cheaply through subcontractors using pilots from other countries with the absolute minimum training required. The ab initio courses are not that far removed from this. However, The 1500hr ATP rule puts somewhat of a kink to this plan and that's a good thing: requiring more hours and the ATP results in more experienced pilots that will probably not stand for bad T&Cs that a low time newbie would.

So I guess what im saying is, cadets from ab initio courses are not dangerous per se, the system works and the airlines' safety records prove it. But then again, we've seen a couple of accidents that are the result of inexperience and that has no place in an airliner cockpit. What I'm more worried about is the long term effects of these schemes in that it shows a general lowering of hiring standards that the airlines will undoubtedly take advantage of in lowering standards even further (the. "Give em an inch and they'll take a mile" syndrome.) Hiring standards should be going UP, not down, when it comes to experience. That's what I'm worried about.

FlyingEngineer

10th Mar 2014, 17:56

With regard to the original point of the thread "will it get worse before it gets better" ultimately it depends if you are an experienced pilot or cadet. If your a cadet well things are as good as they have ever been with two of the biggest airlines in Europe recruiting exclusively cadets, however, if you are an experience pilot working for say Flybe, Eastern, Loganair, AerArann etc.. unfortunately now I feel you will face many glass ceilings ahead. It's sad as all these airlines have excellent training departments and pilots.

Surely it's all about BALANCE i.e. having a workforce that is from a mixture of backgrounds and experience. From my experience of recruitment, not just from aviation, is that too much of one thing is not good. In my previous job we had a graduate scheme which accounted for approx 15% of our new employees, the others were experienced professionals. Most other industry's recognise that a PORTION of recruitment should be graduates/apprenticeships but not the vast majority - that is unhealthy. Well ryanair is 100% cadets and easyjet not far off that (would be interesting to know what percentage of First Officers, over say the last three years, have been cadets) but it's certainly a majority. We all know (dear god do we know) that cadets are an important part of the process but NOT 100% of that process.

This relentless cadet recruitment over the last few years has really stagnated movement within the industry but the sad truth is that the likes of easyjet and ryanair realise there is an awful lot of money to be made from the recruitment of cadets and that there is an awful lot of willing people ready to hand them these huge amounts of money. Even more depressing was easyjet's recent "experienced" pilot recruitment scheme which involved paying for type ratings, no contract etc..

I certainly can't see easyjet/ryanair changing their recruitment methods, why should they? It's a great revenue stream for them and the training providers that they are tucked up in bed with. If anything I could see it becoming even more pay to fly (than it already is) i.e. pay type rating plus first 500hrs..

I for one am certainly "frustrated" with the current state of the industry and am actively working with our union and my airline to ensure we don't go down the road of paying up front for type-ratings/no contracts for new pilots.. I am happy that my airline does recruit from a mixture of backgrounds/experience, has a thorough but fair recruitment policy based on aptitude/personality/ability and not how much money you can throw at them/what flight school you went to.

As current pilots we all have a responsibility (if we chose to take it) to try and make the industry better and not worse.

Alycidon

10th Mar 2014, 18:58

Sadly, the LCCs recruit hundreds of cadets compared to the lower numbers recruited by the more traditional employers.

Where this pigeon comes home to roost is when the cadets want to move on to a longhaul carrier once they have gained the required experience, they will have to compete against hundreds of other similarly trained and experienced candidates because the supply is greater than the demand.

circle of life

Cliff Secord

10th Mar 2014, 23:13

I think that's really well put RAT5 and aa73.

I found the boldest indicator of how ruined the UK market is by the cadet thing is that the supposed top employer in the UK is only taking on trainees with no experience. All those old hold poolers etc long forgotten- so long ago that many of those cadets were still at school whilst you waited it out. Got loads of heavy time and a great record of how well you did in checks? Actual experience of emergencies? Loads of turbo prop time dishing out failures left right and centre exposing you to a decent building of your judgemental and flight management skills or what it actually feels like to operate off contaminated runways that aren't just in a sim? Tough doo you're not in the winning. The low hour or no hour bods are straight there while you rot it out.

Yep, yonks ago if you didn't have any experience and times were tough in flying the experienced guys were the only ones getting in. You took a prop job, instructing whatever, any job - you did your flipping time and kept your head down. Maybe you had a few scares along the way, plenty of knock backs and plenty of humble learning pie. Plodding away working up the ladder aspiring to that top Job knowing that decent terms awaited and that there was no mechanism for some Johnny-come-lately attempting to walt mitty his way to the top and bugger up the t and cs for everyone else.

Compare that to now with the Facebook shade wearing CTC have a go heros. Only on wannabes there was a thread running saying how basically some jobs were beneath a CTC/Oxford young dudes. The world has gone mad.

Of course all that past stuff was when a 'cadet' cost the airline money. As we say it's a case of trying ones best to suck up the annoyance. Lets not tart up the reasons these low/no hour guys are suddenly the golden geese. Its because they're cheap. I wish the coffee that the FAA are drinking found its way to the vending machines in Gatwick. Welcome to the layer cake son :O

Wireless

10th Mar 2014, 23:55

Uh oh. Tin hats on boys :O

Cliff Secord

11th Mar 2014, 00:50

Mm. Your point seems to triangulate around the notion that we need top calibre individuals with backgrounds as Doctors lawyers/degrees/ what have in this job and we should feel damn lucky to have you calling by and popping in at the top. Otherwise you'll leave the industry unless you can command the top buck and it'll probably all go to rats tails with the lesser trained numpties and sure there'd be the obligatory smoking hole wouldn't there?

I'm afraid to say you don't need the degree, doctor, lawyer level of calibre. You need the calibre as you say to do well in the training and succeed in flying. Being good at this job is unique in itself. Yes, having a good academic background is all well and good but it's a tiny bit. A lot of the skills are unquantifiable by means of saying what you have achieved in academia or what job you did before. I've flown with sterling individuals who were things like builders and plumbers prior to flying. They just had that alround solidness and psychology that made a day at the office a pleasure, and should the crap hit the fan they were a sound partner in crime.

This is not the mechanism that facilitates you coming in to command the top pay at a major via CTC. That is not at all why the cadets exist in these jobs. It is only temporary that these short cut routes lead to some top salaries. The top salaries are a hang up from the days when it was a challenge to attract and retain people with the correct experience. Cadets cost money to train back then. Then some bright spark realised you can push the burden onto the trainee. Now in the future years to come watch what happens to the top salary that you think you command.

The pay will not be continue to be held high because of some idea that were it to lower they'd be left with untrainable dunderheads who don't have a degree. Feel delusional if you want that you joined the industry straight at the top because you're a top calibre bod who's sword of Damocles over the industry is you could leave for fantastic pay elsewhere because you're so gifted a cadet. It is solely because you are cheaper. Yes, you have to go through some tests and exams etc. So do experienced Pilots applying to those airlines. The extra checks are only because said trainee has never set foot in an aircraft. Big deal.

I have a very far from romantic view of aviation after 20 years in I feel as unromantic about this vocation as you can get. At no point have said I think people should be happy to work for peanuts. In fact I have also said this is all about dollars and cents not for the love of the job. But I simply do not agree that because you have a great academic background, a high brow first career or special skills to pass the CTC/BA tests is why you can come straight to the top and command the top salaries. That is fiction not the truth of the matter. The irony is that it probably won't affect you but this delusion will be the undoing of these top salaries. Well, as you say you don't care as you'll leave and do something else and good luck to you.

altiplano

28th Mar 2014, 15:25

I can't believe people are arguing against experience.

Would you get on a flight knowing the drivers were going to be a 2000hr new captain and a 250hr FO?

Bealzebub

28th Mar 2014, 15:38

I don't think the argument is "against experience" it is that within the context of the discussion, "experience" isn't the all encompassing panacea that some might suggest.

Would you get on a flight knowing the Captain had 18,500 hours and the F/O 2,760 hours?

Sure you would. Read all about it on page one.

lifeafteraviation

29th Mar 2014, 04:08

I think the real people that are arguing against the importance of experience are people who own and finance airlines and inexperienced pilots.

I can understand both but the inexperienced pilots who take low paying jobs will soon realize that their salaries don't go up as they gain experience, they just get replaced.

The facts are that modern commercial jet aircraft are highly automated, highly reliable, and very easy to fly compared to older aircraft. They are designed to be so highly automated and redundant as to be largely "idiot proof." Modern flight training techniques are very good as well.

Yes experienced pilots in the cockpit are great to have but the airlines are realizing they're not necessary. The frequency of accidents with inexperienced pilots and modern aircraft is lower than historic rates of highly experienced pilots flying older aircraft. In other words, the aircraft are compensating for inexperience and there's no objective data to show that inexperienced pilots are less safe.

Pilots have become a commodity and are easily replaced with new pilots. The topic of this thread states that things must get worse before they get better and it's absolutely true. Basically high paying piloting jobs will become so rare that the dream or the promise will no longer be enough incentive for people to invest so much in the career. But I think the result will be that the profession becomes less prestigious and the airlines will simply follow the Chinese model of hiring and training kids out of school and paying them average wages (except they will do it far more efficiently). It will be a good job but not great....on par with a train operator. We may likely even see single pilot cockpits.

That's where I see the future heading and the professionals will move on to other careers...thus my handle ..."life after aviation"

Maybe some of us will find jobs flying older planes with "steam gauge" panels and cable flight controls or heaven forbid....propellers...that these younger generation of pilots would be incapable of handling safely.

Big Pistons Forever

29th Mar 2014, 06:00

Maybe some of us will find jobs flying older planes with "steam gauge" panels and cable flight controls or heaven forbid....propellers...that these younger generation of pilots would be incapable of handling safely.

How true. I have 61 types in my logbook. Of those there are only 3 where a MPL pilot could legally be on board as flight crew.:hmm:

The current system of student pays works because there is enough of an over supply that airlines can still choose the top performers. But the supply of "not quite good enough" graduates with 100,000 + pound debt increases every day. The word is already getting out and the supply of dreamers with the talent and dosh has to start drying up. The big schools have to keep the numbers up so that means lowering the entry standards. This is inevitable

Those previously mentioned top performers combined with what is generally considered as very robust training departments at both of the big LOCO's is keeping the current situation safe. However the bean counter executives always over reach. So the next "cost management initiative" is IMO absolutely going to be cutting back on the training standards.

Now we have the stage set for a pilot who can keep trying because he has the money if not the talent to get the initial qualification, gets hired because he has the ticket then goes to an airline for IOE run by a cut to the bone airline training office.

Sadly the only thing that causes real change in commercial aviation is a smoking hole with lots of dead bodies. Things will only change if it turns out that a more money than talent new FO who bought his way to the flight deck was a causal factor.

But things are not bad enough yet. I give it another 5 years before the chickens come home to roost.

For those who think people don't care, look at what politician mandated regulatory changes happened in the US after the Colgan Q 400 crash in Buffalo. Europe has not had its Colgan yet, but it is going to happen

Mach E Avelli

29th Mar 2014, 07:38

A smoking hole with lots of dead bodies won't necessarily improve things for pilots. In fact quite the reverse is possible. When (not if) the first A-380 augers in and takes out 400 souls, if human error is the cause, the race will be on to perfect the pilot-less airliner. Indeed, if the fate of the MH aircraft is determined to have been a deliberate act (and I am certainly NOT implying that it was!), the race could be on soon to make it impossible to send an airline aircraft anywhere other than where it can be safely landed. Progressively, we will see pilots less in control, and ergo, less valued by the beancounters.
The only thing that will slow (but not halt) progress to pilot-less would be if said A-380 goes in as a result of a major design flaw in its automation. Yes, before you jump on me, I know all about the team of heroes who saved that Qantas A-380, and who could forget Capt Sullenberger? But automation failure was not the root cause of either of these events. So, had either event occurred in a pilot-less aircraft who knows if a co-ordinated team of ground control geeks would have or could have handled it? Probably not right now. But fast forward 20 to 25 years and it is quite possible that technology will allow remote control management of virtually any problem short of in-flight break-up.
Therefore, 20+ years from now things will have only got worse for pilots. The few good jobs will be on older airframes where experience may still be well regarded.

altiplano

29th Mar 2014, 17:08

Would you get on a flight knowing the Captain had 18,500 hours and the F/O 2,760 hours?Would you get on a flight knowing the Captain had 18,500 hours and the F/O 2,760 hours?

I don't know, I think that FO number low. Maybe if he was ex-military, or maybe if the majority of it came slogging out 6 or 10 legs a day to put 5 hours in his logbook otherwise I'd expect more if I was putting my family on that flight.

RAT 5

29th Mar 2014, 18:24

hptaccv

29th Mar 2014, 19:13

- experience is good - Nobody can argue against that.

Say we have a good candidate for the job - chances are he will make the selection grade for a qualified cadetship scheme. Think BA/LH.
The same candidate would probably also succeed on the self-improvement route.

Imho it all comes down to a good selection process - and equal pay for all who make the grade.

cheers,

Aluminium shuffler

29th Mar 2014, 21:13

I disagree with some of what lifeafteraviation says. Modern aircraft are not easier to operate than the last generation - automation and FBW modes are getting ever more complex and confusing, especially when they malfunction, and modern airframes are not designed to be hand flown so much, so their handling qualities are worse. Compound that with decreasing training, experience levels and currency in manual/raw data/visual flying because of company SOPs, plus harder and harder rostering and you have increasingly difficult operation, I'd say.

As for it being only managers that say experience levels are irrelevant, many experienced captains on here have repeatedly said that they ave seen many highly capable cadets and suspect experienced FOs. Experience is just one factor in a bundle of requirements to make competent pilots, and many of us over estimate the effect of experience alone.

altiplano

30th Mar 2014, 00:54

I think it's a given we aren't refering to incompetent pilots in this thread. I agree no amount of experience will make up for outright incompetence.

But an inexperienced pilot does not equal an experienced pilot basic aptitude considered roughly equal. It does not even come close, and while it may work out ok on the typical day to day operation - when weather, fuel, ATC, technical or other issues arise I think you would see where experience becomes irreplaceable in a hurry.

Mach E Avelli

30th Mar 2014, 01:00

But isn't this debate about whether things will get better for pilots in the future? As in recognition, job opportunities, terms and conditions?

I say "no" - as a lifetime career for anyone starting out today it's all downhill from here.

polax52

30th Mar 2014, 01:41

Mach E Avelli- you are right about it being all down hill from here. Pilots need to shift their mindset from being the salaried professional to being skilled workers who negotiate a good wage and fair promotion through collective bargaining. In the same way that train drivers do, they are actually able to negotiate very reasonable conditions. We are to, we have a strong hand to negotiate with.

Companies like ryr do need to be boycotted by experienced Pilots who have options elsewhere. They have failed to comply with simple European wide laws such as paying taxes, or allowing employees a trade union or even an employment contract. The British government has started to close the loopholes specifically exploited by this cowboy operation.

Big Pistons Forever

30th Mar 2014, 03:23

Sadly the only thing that causes real change in commercial aviation is a smoking hole with lots of dead bodies.

You mention this at the same time as speculating that airline bean counters will cut training standards which might lead to this. Even if it did, and it has in recent years in a rather major airline, it will be the XAA's who demand an improvement in training standards and not the internal bean counters. They have already run cost/risk assessment scenarios whereby they believe what size and number of 'mis-haps' they can sustain. It will all be down to the XAA's to demand change, but they seem to act retrospectively rather than proactively.

In the US the Regulator didn't demand change, public opinion did. The politicians saw they had to Do Something so they passed legislation that required the FAA to make an ATPL a requirement for acting as a crew member of an airliner. The FAA didn't want to change the rules, and the airlines sure as hell opposed change but they got over ruled.

The result is the supply of starry eyed 250 wannabes with SJS who are willing to work for peanuts is now totally and completely eliminated. This has already caused the "better" operators to poach crew from the crap operators who are now parking airplanes because they don't have enough pilots. Signing bonus's are now routine and better T & C 's for all, are inevitable.

But like I said earlier until an EU airline has it's "Colgan" nothing will change.......

Three Lions

30th Mar 2014, 09:46

Big pistons you absolutely have it right regarding the mechanics of how the whole thing develops Ts and Cs wise if the American model is introduced.

There always has to be some influx of cadets into the system. But not to the ratio we currently have in the UK (and Europe) it is extremely damaging to the crews and potential crews in the industry.

And while ever Joe Bloggs and hundreds of Joe Bloggs mates can get into the right hand seat of the upper tier of jobs with less than 300 hours experience and over 100k of debt, and then be given a job on the ts and cs at ryanair and ezy and the like. The whole thing will continue to regress as time moves on. Terms and conditions will continue to degrade and as sweeping across the board statement then the power of the relationship between employer and employee becomes imbalanced in the employers favour

Just a possible scenario for consideration. Joe Bloggs attends large fto is given the large fto school propoganda the ignore people on here like myself and others who are out of touch/bitter/failed etc etc (in actual fact I have a genuine interest in how the UK job market is continuing to evolve) Joe then pays lots of money gets into debt but manages to secure a right hand B737 or A320 job at either a blue Irish company or a slightly better quality orange UK company. The cadet has made it, and the long and winding path to TRE and big money is on as promised.

Then on this happy path something happens and Joe loses his job (unlikely but entirely possible)

now Joe is in exactly the same position as lots of other guys out of work with possible bags more experience than him and cannot get a foot in anywhere even though ryanair and ezy are recruiting straight from the ftos in numbers (Joe knows this because he was there in recent years he knows how many cadets are been pushed into the system from the bottom) now Joe sees why there is concern out there outside the bubble of the fto propoganda machine

The arguement about experience can be seen from two ways as is clearly identified on this thread, and there are possibly good and bad points to both in actual fact. Yes too much inexperience is obviously not good, not so much on a nice sunny morning hop to majorca and back but more a tricky night into bilbao in foul wx and problems on board and failures. Experience cannot be replaced in this case however to freshen a team of workforce up cadets are bright quick to learn enthusiastic and on the whole happy with their lot

i am very strongly of the opinion that a steady influx of cadets/apprentices/trainees is absolutely essential to any industry. The idea of having all experienced people is absurd and is not actually effective.

The problem we have in the UK is the ratio of cadets going straight into the better jobs in the better machines and with the better salaries, to what I would refer to as the old self improvers coming through all non integrated programs. This ratio has shifted considerably in the favour of the cadet specifically into ryr and ezy and also in other areas.

This ratio shift is not the only cause for the erosion in both the stature of the career as a whole and the ts and cs regression. But it is definately a very very large part of the reason.

The only winners in this are the employers and the ftos.

Colgan wasnt cadet related. But the following action was definately good for the employees. Across the board. Even for cadet Bloggs as he did actually get the right hand seat of the jet, as like everyone else he had the skills and the determination however it just took him a little longer time wise.

I enjoy flying with cadets but just dont think the current set up is doing ANY of the crews out there any favours. Its actually a wonderful set up if you are on or can somehow get on the payroll of one of the ftos, or if you are a performance manager or accountant at one of the airlines.

RVF750

30th Mar 2014, 13:34

So true...

lifeafteraviation

30th Mar 2014, 22:54

Aluminium shuffler:
...Modern aircraft are not easier to operate than the last generation - automation and FBW modes are getting ever more complex and confusing, especially when they malfunction, and modern airframes are not designed to be hand flown so much, so their handling qualities are worse...

I appreciate your point. It's true that some old school pilots had a very difficult time transitioning to modern aircraft not because the complexity was so increased but because the implementation of systems integration was so different. Old school auto mechanics these days have similar issues. The transition from purely mechanical skills to complex systems operators. But those pilots were overly dependent on their flying skills IMO and the modern generation of electronics junkies may be more suited to operating computerized aircraft. Like teaching granddad to use his iPad.

I remember when the 757s came out and everybody talked about "glass cockpit experience" as if it was another holy grail box needed to be checked on the way to the big leagues. The facts were later discovered that transitioning from "steam gauges" to glass was statistically easier for pilots than the other way around and the inherent mechanical lag of older panels had actually forced pilots to learn better instrument flying skills (old study....don't ask me to look it up plz).

The point I am making is that modern systems management can be trained in the classroom and simulator far more effectively than the skills needed to fly older aircraft. Competence is certainly a mask for inexperience...not a substitute... but we all need to start somewhere.

Northern Monkey

31st Mar 2014, 00:59

The critical phases of flight, ie taxi, takeoff and landing are still manually controlled as ever they were, perhaps with the very occasional exception when low visibility procedures are in force for autoland. The same manual handling skills are therefore in evidence most days - and arguably more so on days when the wind is blowing as AS alluded to. Most professional airline pilots based in the UK would argue handling skills are still pretty important after the winter we've just had.

I've always felt the real skill though is in effective management, especially of failures, which have become increasingly complex with the advert of new aircraft.

All this while flying more sectors and hours than ever before.

lifeafteraviation

31st Mar 2014, 08:17

I've always felt the real skill though is in effective management, especially of failures, which have become increasingly complex with the advert of new aircraft

Increasingly complex....maybe. The chance of such complex failures have become increasingly rare though. Still...they are academic and can be taught in a classroom or sim. Personally, I find the systems of modern aircraft much easier to manage... Maybe experience has made it easier, maybe it just easier.

Aluminium shuffler

31st Mar 2014, 17:39

Lifeafter, that's a fair point. I see a mixture amongst my colleagues, with some old boys not far from retirement who are very averse to the FMC and its related modes and a fairly open interpretation of SOPs, and new guys far too reliant on automatics, FMC and SOP. I consider myself somewhere in the middle, perhaps a little closer to the old school than the new, but the two philosophies are generally very distinct within the age groups and it is an effort to get the youngsters to think for themselves. Once up to speed, they are quite capable, but it does take a while of exposure on the line. Arguably, the old boys can be brought up to speed more quickly and cheaply as their issue is just one of habit - they have to understand the electronics in order to be rated and routinely checked, after all.

Personally, I find it hard to believe things will improve, at least by any considerable margin. There are just too many willing dreamers and the perception is that we have a cushy job. Ask not just passengers and public but any non-pilot in the industry and they all think we earn a fortune, have a simple job, lots of time off and spend the day posing and fending off young girls. Even the crewing and ops guys don't comprehend the crappy hours, the difficulty of an approach in bad conditions with a broken jet, the job insecurity (not just companies folding, but medical issues, fuel prices and so on), the studying and potential consequences of the six-monthly checks, the spy in the cab and so on. Even wannabes don't get it, or they wouldn't sign up to the FTOs. Until we can get others to understand all of what our job entails, not just the '60s glam image, then we won't see anything move in the right direction.

White Knight

3rd Apr 2014, 02:44

There is nothing terribly difficult about flying a modern airliner once you have the experience

Until the :mad: hits the fan of course.....:ugh::rolleyes:

Cadets are so far up their own arses it actually makes them dangerous! I speak with knowledge......

Give me an FO with HANDLING experience please!!!!

DHC-2 Eater

3rd Apr 2014, 10:07

"Things can only get worse before they get better"

I've been reading this on here for the better part of 5 years !

Mikehotel152

3rd Apr 2014, 13:19

I don't disagree that the ability to handle the airplane with a reasonable level of skill is important, but the Devil's Advocate in me questions your insinuation that cadets are ok

Until the :mad: hits the fan of course.....

My bold.

My point is that the record shows few, if any, incidents or accidents due to low experience or an associated low level of handling ability. By inference, most incidents or accidents happen to experienced pilots.

Provided the Captain is competent, the low experience of the cadet is unlikely to be the cause of the incident or accident. Or so say the stats.... for now...

Personally, I do believe that the overall level of inherent safety is depleted by the cadet recruitment programme at many European Airlines if it is coupled with a regime of early command upgrades.

That the numbers of incidents or accidents is generally on the decrease is quite obviously due to the simplification and reliability of the equipment, the ATC environment, and not due to an influx of better pilots.

lifeafteraviation

3rd Apr 2014, 13:51

speedrestriction

3rd Apr 2014, 13:56

A new first officer with inexperience is not a problem per se - the attitude is all important. i would rather an inexperienced fo who comes to work with the right attitude than a one thousand hour FO who thinks he has seen it all. Best of all obviously is the guy beside you with good attitude and experience.

Alycidon

3rd Apr 2014, 14:07

i would rather an inexperienced fo

than a one thousand hour FO who thinks he's seen it all

no difference, a thousand hours = 15 months on line and a winter, that is not experience, unless that's your point.

speedrestriction

4th Apr 2014, 11:11

My point is that inexperience is not a huge issue if there is good awareness of that lack of experience. I'm with MH182 here - most important thing is to have a sufficient overall level of experience ie. experienced captains with inexperienced FOs and inexperienced captains preferably with experienced FOs. (I certainly don't regard 1,000 hours as experienced!)

FreudianSlippers

4th Apr 2014, 12:47

Maybe it's an oversimplified comparison, but I have seen plenty of people driving cars for years that are far worse drivers than some newly qualified kid with an actual sense of spacial awareness and a bit of common sense.

Alycidon

4th Apr 2014, 14:37

I think a valuable point has been raised here, that if pilots with 1000 hrs regard themselves as old hands, due to the large number of 500 hr pilots around, then there has been a paradigm shift in what constitutes experience.

A guy said to me once that when he had 2500 hrs, he felt ready for the left hand seat, but by the time he had 3500 hrs, he realised he wasn't.

It is quite possible that a lack of experience in either seat may introduce a level of overconfidence due to a reduced perception of how quickly it can all go wrong and what the likely consequences may be.

The inexperienced, while perfectly competent, may not have yet developed a sufficient perception of risk and the longer the safe operation continues, the more the confirmation bias is maintained that the level of risk is low.

Of course, exactly the same applies to 20 000 hr pilots who believe that they have beaten the odds!

Mikehotel152

4th Apr 2014, 16:46

Good post Alycidon.

I remember obtaining my ATPL on around 1700 hours and feeling a swelling of self-confidence, yet it was only at the end of my command course, when I had more than double the hours, that I realised how much I didn't know.

They say that ignorance is bliss. True. Donald was right. There are indeed known unknowns. I know that now. It's the unknown unknowns that catch you out. I didn't know that then.

RAT 5

4th Apr 2014, 16:52

Too many RHS guys think the transfer to LHS is very much being an above average handler and an excellent SOP operator. Indeed, with extensive SOP's for every occasion, and an ideal day the above criteria will more than satisfy a command upgrade assessment, even check ride. However, it is what goes on during a non-ideal day that matters. That is when experience is required, but not always available.
I flew with some excellent ex-cadet F/O's. By that I mean guys who jumped into RHS with 150hrs and now had 2 years and 1500hrs. One telling comment was how they preferred flying with the old farts on dodgy days, or even when just some deviation/discretion/alternative thinking was required. The OF's just got on with the job and used airmanship/common sense to square the circle and get the job done in a safe and acceptable manner. The lower experienced captains from the sausage factory hesitated; thought about what the book said; wondered if it was allowed; were nervous about what best to do, meanwhile the a/c was travelling on its merry way, perhaps not in the best manner. A command course can teach/groom/cultivate a new captain, but it can't inject experience and thinking processes. Those foundations should already be there, but they are not always. A good understanding of the a/c systems and how to operate them; a good understanding of SOP's and a sound leadership manner can be enough to pass the upgrade. Is it enough to be in command of a high intensive operation into a wide variety or airports in all seasons? For discussion.
In a previous life it was very noticeable that the command pass rate varied with the season. High pass rate in summer, much lower in winter. Yet, those companies that produce low expereince captains in the summer months, they having been F/O's in southerly bases, could then send them to become captains with a winter basing in the north. Is that a good idea? For discussion. I was very glad I'd spent a healthy time as an apprentice F/O in cold climes before being thrust up there with the responsibility to make the decisions. I was nervous, of course, but had the grounding. I'd hate to think how one must feel if they had only a winter ops book to fall back on; and no help from RHS.
It is not a simple matter and there is no simple answer, but it is not one to take too lightly either.

WX Man

21st Apr 2014, 18:02

I read this thread with interest, as I find myself in the predicament of being a reasonably experienced (3-4000h) pilot who wants to advance in my career, but can't.

Personally, I've got no problem sharing the cockpit with a 250h cadet. I just wish that recruitment wasn't biased in their favour. I'm a realist, and I realise that to advance in my career I'll need to accept poorer T&Cs than that which I am on at the moment as the commander of a light TP in a small operation (hard to believe, but it's true that worse T&Cs do exist).

lifeafteraviation

23rd Apr 2014, 16:26

You know, this whole discussion is just academic anyway.

What really matters is what do the non pilot bean counters think. Is the risk of placing inexperienced pilots in the cockpit low enough to justify the increased profits from the reduced salaries and longer hours low timers are willing to tolerate? In most cases they say yes and just cross their fingers.

Most bean counters don't consider the less obvious and less measurable benefits of experienced pilots that may translate to reduced training and operating expenses.

On the other hand, there are probably enough high timers out there with such a disgruntled bad attitude they may end up costing more anyway.

737Jock

23rd Apr 2014, 17:33

Personally, I do believe that the overall level of inherent safety is depleted by the cadet recruitment programme at many European Airlines if it is coupled with a regime of early command upgrades.

What's an early command upgrade?

Pilots nowadays work a lot harder (more sectors, more hours) then they used to, ergo you build up experience faster. I would not be surprised if a 5 year pilot will have gained as much hours and experience in those 5 years as a pilot would do in 10 years in the 80/90's.
5000 hours flying longhaul into major airports with ILS facilities and long runways, does not generate the same experience as 5000 hours shorthaul to a greater variety of airports that also include non-precision, circling and visual approaches.
As long as you are not fatigued, continuity of flying will make you a better pilot.

Not a single commander will have experienced everything before he gained command, and statistically you never will. It's all about the grounding, selection and attitude of the command candidate. Hours or indeed time in the airline are a very small factor.

Piltdown Man

24th Apr 2014, 08:03

That the numbers of incidents or accidents is generally on the decrease is quite obviously due to the simplification and reliability of the equipment, the ATC environment, and not due to an influx of better pilots.

I agree but I think we are also seeing the results of more enlightened and improved training systems. Which is why the newby is not the hazard that some would make them out to be. The hazard is the poorly rested, totally shagged out pilot, left or right seat, who misses something important or who simply gets it wrong. And they are poorly rested and tired because of dreadful, but totally legal T's & C's.

And returning to where we started: the supply of pilots is still too large for the positions available. Not until the supply equals demand will T's & C's improve. Ergo, things will have to get so good we run out of pilots (most unlikely) or so bad nobody can afford to train - again, quite unlikely. Therefore, may I respectfully suggest that people should learn to drive a train or become a plumber until things improve.