"Cadet" pilot or First Officer under training?

[sheppey]

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2016/aair/ao-2016-046/

"Cadet Pilot" Is this the latest terminology by ATSB for a fully qualified type rated crew member? First Officer (U/T) under training, would be a more accurate description.
With no co-pilot type rating training under Part 61, is simulator training for the A320 certified to command standard or to a different level for cadet pilots?
One Hong Kong operator uses the term "Second Officer" as equivalent of cadet - if indeed that person is a newly graduated CPL

[dr dre]

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2016/aair/ao-2016-046/

"Cadet Pilot" Is this the latest terminology by ATSB for a fully qualified type rated crew member? First Officer (U/T) under training, would be a more accurate description.

That's correct. Regardless of their background once they have completed their initial licences, ratings and type endorsement, they are employed by the company and are undertaking line training just like any other new hire pilot, so whilst undertaking line training they should be referred to as a First Officer or First Officer under training.

With no co-pilot type rating training under Part 61, is simulator training for the A320 certified to command standard or to a different level for cadet pilots?

I would assume if the training for any other pilot in a certified simulator gets you a command endorsement on type then I can't see why it shouldn't be any different if you happened to have trained via a cadet program.

I don't have any idea why the ATSB decided to refer to the PF in this incident as a "cadet" when it wasn't necessary.

[donkey767]

It sure seems that most of the tail strikes occurring in transport category aircraft over the last few years have involved 'low hour' first officers. 🤔

[dr dre]

It sure seems that most of the tail strikes occurring in transport category aircraft over the last few years have involved 'low hour' first officers. 🤔

Nope.
Plenty of tailstrikes have happened in this country with experienced pilots at the controls.
Here's two:

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/aair/ao-2008-074/ (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/aair/ao-2008-074/)

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2004/aair/aair200403868/

This was more because of the design of the controls of the Airbus and maybe a poor training system than the amount of hours the pilot had before flying a transport category aircraft. This was the PF's first rotation of the jet, how would having thousands of hours in light aircraft have made a pilot invulnerable to overrotation in a fly by wire jet with side sticks that they had never flown before?

[Car RAMROD]

It's for the benefit of all those people who would normally post here "it was probably a cadet pilot"- now they can just say "see, it was a cadet!"

[morno]

This was more because of the design of the controls of the Airbus and maybe a poor training system than the amount of hours the pilot had before flying a transport category aircraft. This was the PF's first rotation of the jet, how would having thousands of hours in light aircraft have made a pilot invulnerable to overrotation in a fly by wire jet with side sticks that they had never flown before?

Utter bollocks. The Airbus system is only a problem for those that don't want to accept it and adjust to it.

As for pilot experience helping, I completely disagree with what you're saying. A pilot with experience will more likely pick up on the rapid rotation rate earlier in the piece and arrest it. Also, when you've got plenty of experience, you're more likely to be smoother and more controlled with your control inputs.

Cadets appear to be here to stay, but to say they're just as safe as an experienced direct entry FO is a long stretch.

morno

[donkey767]

Utter bollocks. The Airbus system is only a problem for those that don't want to accept it and adjust to it.

As for pilot experience helping, I completely disagree with what you're saying. A pilot with experience will more likely pick up on the rapid rotation rate earlier in the piece and arrest it. Also, when you've got plenty of experience, you're more likely to be smoother and more controlled with your control inputs.

Cadets appear to be here to stay, but to say they're just as safe as an experienced direct entry FO is a long stretch.

morno

Yep, couldn't agree more. Anyway, my thoughts are that a cadet should be referred to as a 'cadet' until they meet the requirements and experience of a normal direct entry first officer.

[dr dre]

As for pilot experience helping, I completely disagree with what you're saying. A pilot with experience will more likely pick up on the rapid rotation rate earlier in the piece and arrest it.

Why didn't the experienced training captain pick it up? Why didn't the experienced pilots in every other tailstrike that has ever happened in history rotate properly? How would a pilot with a lot of experience flying smaller aircraft with different rotation rates and pitch attitudes pick it up?

Cadets appear to be here to stay, but to say they're just as safe as an experienced direct entry FO is a long stretch.

The ATSB in a study disagree with you. CASA and almost every other regulator in the world disagree with you. Almost every airline in the world, some of whom solely employ cadets disagree with you.

Also, when you've got plenty of experience, you're more likely to be smoother and more controlled with your control inputs.

Again, after you've had plenty of experience in the type you're flying.

[topend3]

the report indicates that he didn't see the birds either... but the other 2 did...good CRM from the cabin but pretty average that the tailstrike suspected was not reported to ATC given potential for runway FOD to following aircraft...

[Oakape]

By the way 'dr dre', those two reports are of the same incident, not two different ones.

[dr dre]

By the way 'dr dre', those two reports are of the same incident, not two different ones.

Whoops!
Well here's the other report I meant to post, plus I found more on the ATSB website with some very experienced crews at the helm, meaning any one of us are susceptible to it at any time:
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/aair/ao-2008-074/

[GA Driver]

The report probably refers to the crew member as being a cadet pilot because thats the training path the pilot has undertaken and as such, what their rank is referred to within the company for the first 12 months.

So whilst I'd agree it's an F/O under training, I would have thought the ATSB would refer somewhat to the terms used within the initial report from the operator?

[Lookleft]

This incident was not the only one at Jetstar that involved a cadet under training. One of the weaknesses of the Jetstar cadet program was that the last cadets to finish their ab-initio were told to go do their own thing until Jetstar started hiring again. Some went to the industry and came back to Jetstar 2 years later as very competent pilots. Some went back to their previous non-flying jobs. When they were recalled to start training they were well and truly out of currency. Imagine learning to fly then two years later your next flight in an actual aircraft was a domestic jet! Whatever the reason was for the rapid rotation it was the lack of experience that was a significant factor. Was it the cadet's "fault"? Partly because he was he one on the controls but it is also Jetstar's fault for just assuming that the gap in training was of no consequence. During that same period another Jetstar 320 had a hard landing with a cadet flying and two flight attendants had such severe back injuries that after twelve months they are still getting medical attention. At the very least Jetstar should have done some base training with this batch of cadets and not relied just on the simulator.

[parabellum]

I would assume if the training for any other pilot in a certified simulator gets you a command endorsement on type then I can't see why it shouldn't be any different if you happened to have trained via a cadet program.


My experience of a person being trained in a simulator to a standard sufficient to let them go straight on line with the aircraft only applied to people who already had considerable flying experience, e.g. B747 Classic to B747-400.

[The Green Goblin]

If anyone thinks a cadet fresh out of flying school in the right seat is just as safe as an experienced direct entry FO, they need their head read.

Yes, it's done all over the the world. Yes, it's a way to bring new pilots into an operation. Yes, with the right systems and training the risks can be minimised. However, there are still risks.

That is why we gain experience from our mistakes and learn and become better.

If you could train and then be an expert at something, there'd be no need for master craftsman, you'd be able compete professionally at any sport after reading a book and taking a few lessons. We wouldn't need experienced tradies or scientists.

In the real world, you become better the more you are exposed to something and the more you practice.

Cadets makes good pilots, however it takes time. Lot of mistakes and the lessons learned accumulating experience making good future pilots and eventually captains.

[Mister Warning]

I think the term and acronym we used in a Middle Eastern airline was Cadet UNder Training.

[dr dre]

If anyone thinks a cadet fresh out of flying school in the right seat is just as safe as an experienced direct entry FO, they need their head read.


I don't think anyone here thinks that a cadet with 0 hours on an A320 will be as proficient as a direct entry A320 FO with 4000hrs on type. I think what people are saying is that a "direct entry FO" being someone with thousands of hours flying light, non-FBW aircraft but none on the 320 wouldn't necessarily be more proficient as the cadet.

I think the term and acronym we used in a Middle Eastern airline was Cadet UNder Training.

They aren't real "cadets" if they got in via bloodlines, nepotism or cash.

A real Cadetship has a very stringent selection criteria that only takes the top percentage of applicants and trains them to high standard. You can argue all day about what specific programs fit that definition but those ones operated by ME don't.

[Lookleft]

So you are saying that after 2 years of doing what ever he was recalled to Jetsar, and on his first day at work he was put in an A320 and given the controls?
That would have to be one of the stupidest comments I have read on the site. Typical of the current generation, "it is always someone else's fault, not mine".

Sorry, my expectation is that you would realise that the cadet had already gone through the endorsement and transitions sims. For the benefit of the dim witted I will clarify that the first time the cadet handled the actual aeroplane was on the takeoff where he over rotated. He had already been PM for his first 4 sectors. :ugh:

Cadets makes good pilots, however it takes time. Lot of mistakes and the lessons learned accumulating experience making good future pilots and eventually captains.

Couldn't agree more.

[Keg]

Looks like someone is here simply looking for an argument.

[Lookleft]

It wouldn't be the first time Keg.:ok:

[Judd]

It sure seems that most of the tail strikes occurring in transport category aircraft over the last few years have involved 'low hour' first officersCertainly that seems the case from numerous anecdotal reports from the SE Asia region where hiring of "cadets" is more prevalent than with Australian airlines. Tail strike incidents in particular with Airbus where there is no feed back to the PM because of the design of the side-stick system.

IMHO there is a case for simulator instructors to physically demonstrate various sequences such as a take-off, circuits and landings with and without cross-wind, initial training of rejected take-off's, engine failure after V1, stall recovery from high and low altitude. A pilot new to type should then to be able to sit back and watch a good demonstration so he has an ideal to aim for. A picture is worth a thousand words.

An instructor should also have the instructional skill be able to demonstrate how not to fly a sequence and thus allow a new pilot the opportunity to observe the consequences of a stuff-up. For example in the simulator by demonstrating the danger of a tail strike by the instructor making a rapid rotation far beyond the recommended rate, would be far more value than verbal "talking through" method of instructing. In the case of the A320 incident that is the subject of this thread and the ATSB report (a rotation rate of 9 degrees per second was mentioned), a previous demonstration of the correct rate of rotation by a competent simulator instructor may have prevented the incident in the first place. We all learn by observing an expert at work.

The consequences of an unstable approach is another example where a demonstration of a high and fast final approach and subsequent over-run on a wet runway, would be of immense value to the student under simulator training. Instead it is common to see box ticking exercises rather than a pilot learning from observing.

Early or late flare height is another example where a good demonstration aids the students own judgement and learning. Same with cross-wind take off and landing. It is basic instructional technique. First demonstrate so the student knows what is expected. Then practice. That is why we have simulators.

[das Uber Soldat]

I don't think anyone here thinks that a cadet with 0 hours on an A320 will be as proficient as a direct entry A320 FO with 4000hrs on type. I think what people are saying is that a "direct entry FO" being someone with thousands of hours flying light, non-FBW aircraft but none on the 320 wouldn't necessarily be more proficient as the cadet.

Why do I get the feeling you're a cadet.

"I think what people are saying is that a "direct entry FO" being someone with thousands of hours flying light, non-FBW aircraft but none on the 320 wouldn't necessarily be more proficient as the cadet."

Of course they are, what a ridiculous assertion. Evidence? At JQ the cadet does more than double the flying hours of a direct entry (but non type rated FO). If they're equally proficient, why?

A cadet has lower limits compared to a direct entry FO. 10 kts xwind (vs 20 for non cadet) and cannot land on runways less than 2000m. A direct entry FO can. Again, why?

he ATSB in a study disagree with you. CASA and almost every other regulator in the world disagree with you. Almost every airline in the world, some of whom solely employ cadets disagree with you.
What evidence do you have to support these assertions?

[The Green Goblin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Green Goblin View Post
If anyone thinks a cadet fresh out of flying school in the right seat is just as safe as an experienced direct entry FO, they need their head read.
I don't think anyone here thinks that a cadet with 0 hours on an A320 will be as proficient as a direct entry A320 FO with 4000hrs on type. I think what people are saying is that a "direct entry FO" being someone with thousands of hours flying light, non-FBW aircraft but none on the 320 wouldn't necessarily be more proficient as the cadet.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

A cadet on their first flight is not as proficient as a direct entry FO with no previous jet experience. If anyone thinks they are, they need their head read.

A cadet doesn't know what they don't know. That's not their fault. It's purely the fact they have not gained thousands of hours of flying experience along with perhaps a regional command and the lessons that are learned along the way.

That's not to say they won't get there. Of course, they will. They are usually pretty smart kids. It just takes time.

The biggest lessons are usually the personal ones. How do you react when you're really scared? Have you ever had that experience that this is it, and how did you get it here? What is everyone going to say? Have you just about written yourself off? How close did you actually get? I got very lucky.

I would say the biggest lessons I learnt from GA was not the flying experience. It was the decision making experience. The ability to take a step back and 'nut' something out after the 'oh ****'....You don't want to be learning that about yourself in a jet. It's something a sim can't prepare you for.

[Slezy9]

I think what people are saying is that a "direct entry FO" being someone with thousands of hours flying light, non-FBW aircraft but none on the 320 wouldn't necessarily be more proficient as the cadet.


Rubbish!

See above posts. Don't want to repeat what they have said!