Euro market pilot saturation

[Luray]

Hello there,

Don't kick me hard for this thread.

On a long layover i looked through US pilot Job market and apparently they are ahead of Europe in terms of salary and working environment. For example sign-on bonus which i never heard of before. I was comparing this to European market overcrowded with young pilots agreeing to work for food to get jet hours. I am not talking about legacy carriers but i mean low-cost airlines that are damping the salary by taking advantage of your little experience and desire to fly big jets no matter what. After you build some hours you move to Asia or ME and circle starts all over again.
So my question is, what would happen if Europe did the same thing as US and apply 1500 h rule before allowing you to fly big jets? Would that bankrupt low-cost airlines and end slavery or would it cause Pan-European transport collapse? Definitely it will benefit safety and make experienced pilots more valuable.
I have a few thousand hours on turboprop in regional and was recently offered to fly E jet for 1/5 of my salary:) I had to decline this generous offer but i am sure there are those who will accept it and in a few years move to Asia to make big money.

[Intrance]

The problem here would be that in most of Europe, there isn't a GA scene or market for pilots to build up to those 1500hrs. And besides that, you always have to remember that experience does not equal safety. I've flown with enough experienced idiots and inexperienced good pilots to say that that holds up. In my opinion, that 1500hr limit is mostly just an arbitrary hoop to jump through, and the focus should be more on filtering out the idiots during training by regulating flight schools in better ways and simply banning pay to fly programs in any form. That would benefit everyone; less pilots get dumped into the job market, average quality of pilots goes up.

I've flown with FO's fresh out of flight school on their first job who have been absolutely awesome and would be a welcome addition in any airline, but who would run into an arbitrary wall if there were to be a 1500hr rule over here as well.

[VariablePitchP]

Hello there,

Don't kick me hard for this thread.

On a long layover i looked through US pilot Job market and apparently they are ahead of Europe in terms of salary and working environment. For example sign-on bonus which i never heard of before. I was comparing this to European market overcrowded with young pilots agreeing to work for food to get jet hours. I am not talking about legacy carriers but i mean low-cost airlines that are damping the salary by taking advantage of your little experience and desire to fly big jets no matter what. After you build some hours you move to Asia or ME and circle starts all over again.
So my question is, what would happen if Europe did the same thing as US and apply 1500 h rule before allowing you to fly big jets? Would that bankrupt low-cost airlines and end slavery or would it cause Pan-European transport collapse? Definitely it will benefit safety and make experienced pilots more valuable.
I have a few thousand hours on turboprop in regional and was recently offered to fly E jet for 1/5 of my salary:) I had to decline this generous offer but i am sure there are those who will accept it and in a few years move to Asia to make big money.

Yes, it would absolutely fix the Ts&Cs problem. Issue is it’s a totally arbitrary and unnecessary rule just for the sake of driving up Ts&Cs. That’s why the US unions like it, because it works for their members.

1500 hours of towing a banner behind a 172 does not make you a better airline pilot, it just doesn’t. A few hundred might add to your SA and decision making maybe, but 1500, really?... You may as well ask for a 4 year Russian Language degree; it won’t help, it’ll sure drive up Ts&Cs though.

Disclaimer - I started on a jet out of flight school in the EU. With hindsight, having been generally okay, I can categorically say that I did not need 1500 hours of towing ‘Happy 40th Barry’ banners behind a Cessna before starting as what I do on a day to day is worlds apart to what that sort of flying would demand.

[Climb150]

Towing happy birthday wont make you a better pilot but asking for 1500 hours will stop the pilot puppy factories turning out young fresh CPL holders who will do almost anything for a job. They have a 100k pound debt so paying it is priority.

I have been in the US for a while now and Capts tell me about when 250 hours would get you in a regional jet. Usually they had many more applicants than jobs so picking the cream was easy. Pay for training then look forward to getting net 1600 dollars a month. All because you needed airline time to apply to American/United/ Delta. The system stank and needed changing. The Euro system isnt much better at the moment.

[Intrance]

Towing happy birthday wont make you a better pilot but asking for 1500 hours will stop the pilot puppy factories turning out young fresh CPL holders who will do almost anything for a job. They have a 100k pound debt so paying it is priority.It's not going to stop that at all. Those 'pilot puppy factories' are commercial entities interested in making money and will find new ways to keep doing so and to keep producing pilots. There will be silly schemes where they'll have new pilots pay a crap load of money on top of already high 'normal' training costs to be guaranteed a spot on a miserable old turboprop for 1 year or 500hrs after training. Those already exist now. Schemes will get worse as the schools will want to survive.

Therefore, better regulation of those schools instead of an arbitrary total time limit. And just outright ban pay to fly schemes altogether. It might not work as quickly in the short term to improve T&C's for current pilots, but it would be a more fair solution that would not beat down new pilots who might actually be good.

And for the talk about the US system... this is the same system that allowed the FO from that Atlas 767 crash to be in the air. It ain't all sunshine and roses there and I'm sure there's more like him flying around as well.

[Climb150]

Atlas FO didnt disclose just like Lubitz didnt disclose.

[marchino61]

Atlas FO didnt disclose just like Lubitz didnt disclose.

Isn't disclosure mandatory under the Pilot Records Improvement Act?

[porkflyer]

The problem here would be that in most of Europe, there isn't a GA scene or market for pilots to build up to those 1500hrs. And besides that, you always have to remember that experience does not equal safety. I've flown with enough experienced idiots and inexperienced good pilots to say that that holds up. In my opinion, that 1500hr limit is mostly just an arbitrary hoop to jump through, and the focus should be more on filtering out the idiots during training by regulating flight schools in better ways and simply banning pay to fly programs in any form. That would benefit everyone; less pilots get dumped into the job market, average quality of pilots goes up.

I've flown with FO's fresh out of flight school on their first job who have been absolutely awesome and would be a welcome addition in any airline, but who would run into an arbitrary wall if there were to be a 1500hr rule over here as well.
Bull****!!! I fly regurarly pilot that would not be able to get on ground safely in case of incapacitation. They are awesome in their total ignorance and lack of aimsmship .
In the US without a degree you are not getting a job here we have guys that cannot articulate verbs. I would make mandatory either a full ATPL or a specific
degree plus reduce hours like 800 or so like in the US. Passengers are in danger from this pilot milling business that should stop immediately.

[back to Boeing]

Bull****!!! I fly regurarly pilot that would not be able to get on ground safely in case of incapacitation. They are awesome in their total ignorance and lack of aimsmship .
In the US without a degree you are not getting a job here we have guys that cannot articulate verbs. I would make mandatory either a full ATPL or a specific
degree plus reduce hours like 800 or so like in the US. Passengers are in danger from this pilot milling business that should stop immediately.

whilst not agreeing or disagreeing with your post there is absolutely zero evidence (real studied accident and incident data as opposed to anecdotal) to back up your statement. And like others I have flown with “cadets” with virtually no experience that can put many oldies to shame and I have flown with many experienced pilots that I wouldn’t trust to be in charge of a TV remote control, and everything in between.

[porkflyer]

I again disagree. Lion Air and Ethiopian are the proof. Poor piloting skills and lack of knowledge played s role.
Whilst on general safety has improved the statisticsl data of CFIT or near CFIT has not.
Low hours cadet are only possible on AB INITIO courses in major airlines with a proper facilities and proven quality of training and with strict pre parameters.
Thiird tiers low co ( quality) that made of type and line training a business should be stopped immediately. There are " pilots" that are ( ridicolously ) paid passengers filling paper work that cannot fly without automation and have limited capability with, , cannot read properly a checkist and have zero knowledge of aicraft systems and zero general aeronautical knowledge thanks to multiple answer exams. This must be stopped.

[derjodel]

I again disagree. Lion Air and Ethiopian are the proof. Poor piloting skills and lack of knowledge played s role.

En there I thought that:
- Lion Air pilots didn't even know about MCAS, so didn't have the means to understand what was going on
- the runaway trim technique reinforced after Lion Air crash was found to be flawed by the FAA after Ethiopian crash (so even if the pilots knew the procedure, the procedure was wrong)
- the plane has been grounded and production halted due to its inherent unsafety

PS: I guess we found a Boeing board member on the forum

[Check Airman]

A few things to note here.

1. Shortly after the ATP rule kicked in here, regional jet salaries increased significantly, as well as the introduction of significant signing bonuses. Part was the increased hiring from major airlines (sucking up the CA’s and senior FO’s), part was the shortage of 250hr guys willing to do anything to fly a jet. Some of them have just become 1500hr guys willing to do anything, but that’s something else. To give you an idea of the size of the increase, at my first airline, the starting salary for a first officer has gone up 127% (that’s not a typo, it’s more than doubled) in 3-4 years. T&C have improved as well. Back when I was there, the management laughed at the idea of paying a FO that much. “We’d love to, but can’t possibly afford it” they said. As of today, they’re still doing business, and say they’re profitable, so I guess they found the money somehow.

2. Somebody mentioned doing 1500hrs towing banners. Firstly, not all of us got 1500hrs towing banners on VFR days. That’s one of several paths. Each path has its merits though. The banner tow guys (in my experience) are quite comfortable at the edges of the aerodynamic envelope, and are perfectly happy getting airplanes into and out of stalls all day long. Unfortunately, some pilots without that experience get very nervous at Vref-1, and react inappropriately to stalls.

I’ll agree though, that a logbook alone can’t tell you how well the pilot will do in an airline cockpit, and we need to do a better job of weeding out those who shouldn’t be there.

Regarding the lack of background disclosure. That has been a known issue since the Colgan 3407 accident. There’s a system in the works to address it. It was spoken about in the interviews. Unfortunately, it’s not quite up and running yet, a decade later.

[CW247]

Wow, porky. Just wow. You have hereby been consigned to the sin bin (to read the thousand of pages about the Max on Rumours and News). We hope your rehabilitation works out.

[OMAAbound]

It’s a very interesting point, and I’ve long said this about many of these ‘Low Houred’ schemes which are out there.

What makes you a better pilot with 1501hrs than at 1499hrs? Like has been said in previous posts, pulling a Banner behind you for 2 years, building hours, doesn’t necessarily mean you’re perfectly then equipped and qualified to fly an A320? Is your captain at your new airline going to hand you the mic to wish Sandra and the girls in row 12, a nice hen weekend in Amsterdam getting smashed and stoned!

More has to be done at flight schools to weed out the guys who are solely getting through on the basis of money. Perhaps Airlines themselves should monitor and regulate their own flying schools, so they can see and have first hand knowledge of the applicant.

Maybe the days of ab-initio courses should be banned? I myself am a product of the modular training, Where I worked hard, studies hard, put every hour I had flying, to gain any experience I could.

Personally, the mentality of the youth these days need to change, they see the world through pound and dollar signs, if you’ve got enough money you can do anything and sadly that’s now true with being a commercial pilots. Want to be a 747 pilot, no problems, mum and dads house as collateral and if it goes wrong no bother, it’s not your house! Utter madness!

OMAA

[Officer Kite]

Hello there,

Don't kick me hard for this thread.

On a long layover i looked through US pilot Job market and apparently they are ahead of Europe in terms of salary and working environment. For example sign-on bonus which i never heard of before. I was comparing this to European market overcrowded with young pilots agreeing to work for food to get jet hours. I am not talking about legacy carriers but i mean low-cost airlines that are damping the salary by taking advantage of your little experience and desire to fly big jets no matter what. After you build some hours you move to Asia or ME and circle starts all over again.
So my question is, what would happen if Europe did the same thing as US and apply 1500 h rule before allowing you to fly big jets? Would that bankrupt low-cost airlines and end slavery or would it cause Pan-European transport collapse? Definitely it will benefit safety and make experienced pilots more valuable.
I have a few thousand hours on turboprop in regional and was recently offered to fly E jet for 1/5 of my salary:) I had to decline this generous offer but i am sure there are those who will accept it and in a few years move to Asia to make big money.
what hours did you have when you started your turboprop job?

[dr dre]

Like has been said in previous posts, pulling a Banner behind you for 2 years, building hours, doesn’t necessarily mean you’re perfectly then equipped and qualified to fly an A320?


The pilots of the Ural Air A321 forced landing in the Moscow cornfield would've had roughly 250 hours when both of them first started operational flying on the Airbus, shows you don't need to be a Sullenberger to pull off something like that successfully.

[cessnapete]

En there I thought that:
- Lion Air pilots didn't even know about MCAS, so didn't have the means to understand what was going on
- the runaway trim technique reinforced after Lion Air crash was found to be flawed by the FAA after Ethiopian crash (so even if the pilots knew the procedure, the procedure was wrong)
- the plane has been grounded and production halted due to its inherent unsafety

PS: I guess we found a Boeing board member on the forum

I think you will find lack of airmanship and training did play a part in the Max accidents.
Especially the ET incident.
Well before MCAS was active the pilots distracted by the faulty A/A probe causing the Stick Shaker, left full takeoff power set throughout the flight until ground contact. Not good Airmanship.
No, I don't work for Boeing.

[Easyheat]

So my question is, what would happen if Europe did the same thing as US and apply 1500 h rule before allowing you to fly big jets? Would that bankrupt low-cost airlines and end slavery or would it cause Pan-European transport collapse? Definitely it will benefit safety and make experienced pilots more valuable.y.

The thought of better t&cs here in Europe, would be nice. However not realistic. The European Union has deregulated aviation, simply to reduce costs of transportation. EU is a trade union, and to be efficient, you need cheap transportation, to be able to sell a spanish produced lemon in Stockholm, for almost the same price as in Madrid.

[bulldog89]

The 1500 hours rule was just a political "let's do something with no sense" after the 2009 Colgan Air accident, were fatigue and poor cockpit discipline were also contributing causes.
You know what's also funny? That both the involved pilots had more tha 1500 hours at the time of the accident.

So what's this 1500? Just a random number written by a politican, nothing more than that.
I'd also like to know why a bachelor program would make that 1500 become a 1000...that's one third of the "essential" required experience waived. Or why pilots with less than 1500 hours performed better than guys with more than 1500 hours during regional training. Or why are they considering to lower the magic number to solve the "pilot shortage"...

We should look at the quality of training and personal attitude, not at total hours.

My personal view about increasing T&C and the "pilot shortage" in the US: they're not related to the 1500 hours rule, but to the fact that a lot of people choose other careers when the regionals were paing 20000$ for an FO. Now they're forced to increase T&C. Then it will cycle again and again.

[iggy]

We should look at the quality of training and personal attitude, not at total hours.

Needing a higher number of total hours to access an airline job would put the pay-to-get-the-license-no-matter-what path out of business.

Making the number of hours high enough so it is not practical to pay for all of them would put the pay-to-fly path out of business as well.

Needing to pass actual screenings rather than paying to build a career in a aviation would immediately fix the attitude problems and would steer the young pilots towards the training organizations with the highest quality of teaching, not the easiest ones. After some years of this, things could possibly go back to normal.

I have flown out of the EU with European cadets and their skills and attitude sucks big time (go ahead and bash me, it is the honest truth). The worst of this is that they are not even aware of it. They think it is the usual in a cockpit not to follow the chain of command, argue for the sake of it, bend the SOP's, follow "what this Captain told me" instead of reading the manual, etc. It is not really their fault since they have been led to believe that it is how things are done. For them, I am the dinosaur.

When I started I also had a very low number of hours BUT the difference is in how I got my first job: it was after sending CV's for years all around the world, waiting for my chance and failing plenty of interviews and sim screenings until I got it right and I reached the required standard.

Requiring total time would not make better pilots but would definitely help to filter out the ones that want it by paying and not by studying and making the effort.

[Consol]

The problem here would be that in most of Europe, there isn't a GA scene or market for pilots to build up to those 1500hrs. And besides that, you always have to remember that experience does not equal safety. I've flown with enough experienced idiots and inexperienced good pilots to say that that holds up. In my opinion, that 1500hr limit is mostly just an arbitrary hoop to jump through, and the focus should be more on filtering out the idiots during training by regulating flight schools in better ways and simply banning pay to fly programs in any form. That would benefit everyone; less pilots get dumped into the job market, average quality of pilots goes up.

I've flown with FO's fresh out of flight school on their first job who have been absolutely awesome and would be a welcome addition in any airline, but who would run into an arbitrary wall if there were to be a 1500hr rule over here as well.

Intrance sums it up nicely. Don't forget that the MPL (like it or not but here to stay) is based entirely on flight school direct to airline with about 100 hours on real aeroplanes.

Good aptitude, attitude and training make for good pilots. Flown with former pay to fly guys who couldn't, spoiled ab initios who's daddys were senior captains and think they have it sorted from day 1 as there are slowing to 180kts and calling for flaps at 25nm or idiots who won't get off their phones to do some work. Also flew with some excellent newbies, some of which had had to struggle up from non traditional backgrounds and who got there through hard work, determination and a love of flying. Takes all sorts but I know who I respect.

[the_stranger]

Just a quick question, if there would be a rule change requiring 1500 hrs before flying the "big jets", what would be a big jet what would they fly before that? Good luck finding a job where you fly something other than a jet in Europe (or Asia/Middle East for that matter) and would that not just move the problem by obliterating the T&C at the rather rare job opportunities where they fly something other than a "big jet"?

Good selection and training is where good pilots are found and formed, not on GA fields with a banner on their ass. (which does not say they can't be good pilots, just that it does not solely determine it).

[SaulGoodman]

I have flown out of the EU with European cadets and their skills and attitude sucks big time (go ahead and bash me, it is the honest truth). The worst of this is that they are not even aware of it. They think it is the usual in a cockpit not to follow the chain of command, argue for the sake of it, bend the SOP's, follow "what this Captain told me" instead of reading the manual, etc. It is not really their fault since they have been led to believe that it is how things are done. For them, I am the dinosaur.

Which airline was this? My guess it is one that has not the best T&C’s and does not have the option to implement a proper screening or even does P2F.
I mean, I have also flown with American and Australian pilots who had lots of hours but were pretty useless. Nationality has very little to do with it. When the market went upwards again, the good ones went to decent companies in the EU or US and the bad ones stayed or went to the second tier companies.

[Banana Joe]

I can't wait to reach 1500 hours, I will become an ace overnight.

[porkflyer]

There is shortage of flight instructor. Many schools are hiring. That is the normal path. Being a flight instructor builds an excellent background. You learn a lot about yourself and how to deal with others.
The very few good pilots I had the chance to fly with had a background in flight instructing or banner towing. I regularly fly with dudes that cannot coordinate feet hands and brain and with 1000+ hours on type are unable to tame a 10 kts crosswind.
Not everybody can be a pilot.. Daddy's mmeu cannot buy everything.

[porkflyer]

I can't wait to reach 1500 hours, I will become an ace overnight.
1500 on autopilot will never make you a pilot my friend .

[Chris the Robot]

Historically, I believe the way to what was a BCPL plus ATPL Theory was either 700 hours of flying time, or 200 hours on an "approved course". The approved courses were generally of the integrated variety and funded largely by airlines, which only funded trainees when they anticipated that they would need pilots. When there was a downturn and airlines went out of business or pilots on the approved courses were not hired by the airline that had sponsored them due to the economic situation, there were some surpluses but there wasn't the permanent surplus situation of today. Banks, to the best of my knowledge, were much more cautious about lending, so gambling a house on flight training wasn't the option it is today.

Personally, I think if pilots were only allowed to sit the ATPL exams after passing an aptitude test (with only a limited numbers of attempts allowed, or at least a few years between attempts), that would thin out the numbers considerably. However, it would have to be a Europe-wide thing, otherwise airlines would use regulatory/labour arbitrage to get around it.

I'm surprised BALPA didn't kick up a large fuss when the 700 hour rule was removed and anyone could enter the market after 200 hours, surely it was obvious that there would be a massive supply of low-houred pilots who would undermine the T&Cs right across the profession? It is, after all, basic supply and demand.

[giggitygiggity]

Shortly after the ATP rule kicked in here, regional jet salaries increased significantly, as well as the introduction of significant signing bonuses. Part was the increased hiring from major airlines (sucking up the CA’s and senior FO’s), part was the shortage of 250hr guys willing to do anything to fly a jet. Some of them have just become 1500hr guys willing to do anything, but that’s something else. To give you an idea of the size of the increase, at my first airline, the starting salary for a first officer has gone up 127% (that’s not a typo, it’s more than doubled) in 3-4 years. T&C have improved as well. Back when I was there, the management laughed at the idea of paying a FO that much. “We’d love to, but can’t possibly afford it” they said. As of today, they’re still doing business, and say they’re profitable, so I guess they found the money somehow.


Since I joined my British airline 7 years ago, the starting salary has gone up 240% from the pittance it was back then so it isn't exclusively an American phenomenon.

[B-757]

1500 on autopilot will never make you a pilot my friend .

​​​​​​..Thank you for this comment..

​​​​​​.. This is what the difference is between 250-1500hr guys.. Handflying skills, visual approaches and landings in conditions other than good, as an example..

..The 250hr pilots usually know the procedures and the autopilot quite well, but just cannot handle the above..(Nothing against the low time guys, we have all been there)..This is a fact, things I have seen during my 30yrs in Aviation..There is a difference..

Fly safe,
B-757

[porkflyer]

​​​​​​..Thank you for this comment..

​​​​​​.. This is what the difference is between 250-1500hr guys.. Handflying skills, visual approaches and landings in conditions other than good, as an example..

..The 250hr pilots usually know the procedures and the autopilot quite well, but just cannot handle the above..(Nothing against the low time guys, we have all been there)..This is a fact, things I have seen during my 30yrs in Aviation..There is a difference..

Fly safe,
B-757
Thank you. I agree 100%. Imagine a scenario of a captain incapacitation in rough weather at night with a 250 hours " pilot" having to bring the plane safely on ground. Few will manage ,from my experience. The risk is unacceptable...and it will happen one day or another.

[4runner]

Isn't disclosure mandatory under the Pilot Records Improvement Act?

sort of. He didn’t disclose that he had worked there, therefore atlas third party background check outfit didn’t request records from the 2 airlines. As for the 1500 hours, experience counts. I don’t know any banner towers. I know instructors. Flight instructing teaches leadership, CRM, stick and rudder skills, decision making and work ethic. Sorry that Europe regulated and taxed itself into a GA black hole. Too bad.

[Luray]

Wow, i did not expect so many comments. Actually i have nothing against fresh out of school pilots , we've all been there so don't get me wrong. I wrote something about safety but it was purely assumption which is clearly proven to be wrong. My concern is mainly with T&C and European aviation that is definitely going god knows where. Lets assume regulations won't change and low-cost airlines will expand, multiply and mutate(like Lauda) and eventually bigger legacy carries will struggle hard to compete and either go belly up or transform to another low cost airline with a proud name and huge debt. As i pilot i prefer not moving to Asia and rather have a decent life in Europe and get an average salary. People in Europe are relatively rich and can spare us some change on top of the ticket price. Otherwise we all end up senior captains sharing dorm bunks and frozen pizza.

[AviatorDave]

I think you will find lack of airmanship and training did play a part in the Max accidents.
Especially the ET incident.
Well before MCAS was active the pilots distracted by the faulty A/A probe causing the Stick Shaker, left full takeoff power set throughout the flight until ground contact. Not good Airmanship.
No, I don't work for Boeing.

Indeed. It‘s not black or white here. Boeing‘s MCAS is a thorough, inexcusable and dangerous screwup, but better maintenance and airmanship might have saved the day against all odds.

[UberPilot]

Thank you. I agree 100%. Imagine a scenario of a captain incapacitation in rough weather at night with a 250 hours " pilot" having to bring the plane safely on ground. Few will manage ,from my experience. The risk is unacceptable...and it will happen one day or another.

Dude, we fly airliners, not the space shuttle! Having had the benefit of a military flying training I am quite happy with my hand flying skills. I am also very happy with that of my new colleagues. We fly large, slow and largely stable 60 ton jets from 3000m runways to another 3000m runway with some
sort of approach. We are not asking people to lead formations of aircraft at low level into enemy territory!

[4runner]

Wow, i did not expect so many comments. Actually i have nothing against fresh out of school pilots , we've all been there so don't get me wrong. I wrote something about safety but it was purely assumption which is clearly proven to be wrong. My concern is mainly with T&C and European aviation that is definitely going god knows where. Lets assume regulations won't change and low-cost airlines will expand, multiply and mutate(like Lauda) and eventually bigger legacy carries will struggle hard to compete and either go belly up or transform to another low cost airline with a proud name and huge debt. As i pilot i prefer not moving to Asia and rather have a decent life in Europe and get an average salary. People in Europe are relatively rich and can spare us some change on top of the ticket price. Otherwise we all end up senior captains sharing dorm bunks and frozen pizza.

i believe the market saturation has to do with the lower standards and experience levels for pilots. For example, I’ve flown with 20 year old 737 pilots in Africa that had 750 hours total, 500 in the 73. They obviously did not have a degree. These individuals did not have to go through the gauntlet and many stages that the same aviator would have achieved, had they been in the US. They paid for flight school, paid to train and fly the 737, and now find themselves employed. These individuals did not have to “earn” their wings or types. They bought them. To be in the right seat of a 73 in the US, you would most likely have a 4 year degree as 72% of american ATP holders have and all major airlines require. You would have gotten your ratings in the military, during college or shortly thereafter. You would have then spent several years accruing experience(hours), trying not to get killed by student pilots, yelled at by career flight school management and getting ready for your first airline interview. By this stage, 65% of the people who started flight school wirh you are no longer pursuing aviation(they couldn’t hack it). You interview with several regional airlines and hopefully get hired. Now, the airline is paying you a salary and for your training. They expect results. Now you learn how to study all over again and the pressure is on. Now you hopefully get signed off on line training after 25-50 hours. Once again, they expect results, they’re paying for it. By this time, you’ve lost another 5-20% of the people you started with. After a few years of 5 leg days, you get a Captain slot. Once again, they expect results. You will lose another 5-20% in upgrade. Now, you’ve got to be an instructor all over again as you’re flying with green FO’s once you’re off high mins. Now you’ve got 1000 in the left seat and are updating your CV(resume) and studying all over again for interviews. Maybe you get hired at United or Jet Blue. Restart initial training. Once again, they expect results. Now, you’re a seasoned veteran, a college graduate, an experienced aviator, at least 28-30 and worthy of the right seat of a Boeing or Airbus and the associated salary and responsibility. Merika....

[turbidus]

Wont be too long before you can get the 1500 hrs on MSFT Flight Sim!

[A320baby]

Doing 4 sector days flying for a loco will soon get you the experience! I was doing visuals NDBs VORs, winter ops during my time.

[Check Airman]

Disagree with the flight instructor route being a good route to airline flying. Had a guy, 8 years as an instructor recently wash out in line training having had 3 chances at final line check. He could handle the aircraft fine but he was shocking (down right dangerous from what I heard) in airline world. I have flown with some good guys who were ex instructors but they have all said they feel they didn’t learn much from it.

I guess it depends on what you do as an instructor. If all you do is teach private and commercial students, that gives you one skill set. Start teaching multi, and particularly instrument, and your skill set broadens significantly.

I went the CFI route, but I know that’s not necessarily the absolute best route. The folks who did the 135 stuff flying in the weather every night in light pistons and turboprops have slightly different competencies and comfort zones than I would have had as a CFI.

Others still, got “lucky” and landed a job in a small corporate jet pretty early on. I’d imagine they have the easiest transition to airline flying, but I don’t know how their transition from props to corporate jet went.

At some point, you’ll have to make the big jump. I guess the quality of your flight experience (not flight time) before that point will dictate how well you do.

[Climb150]

Right for everyone who missed it. US Govt bought in the 1500 hour rule to lift wages and conditions. This in turn would improve safety. One of the big factors in the Colgan crash was fatigue. The FO had jumpseated from Seattle (4.5 hour flight) the night before and slept in the crew room because she couldn't afford to live in base. The pay was so bad she lived at home.

To everyone who says 250 hour cadets are gods thats great but there are also not so great 250 hour cadets too. Same good/not so good FO, CAPT, Check airman also

The result of 1500 min in the USA was a dramatic increase in wages and conditions which will have a huge effect on fatige levels and moral in general.

Didnt a UK CPL require 600 hours once?

[dr dre]

Right for everyone who missed it. US Govt bought in the 1500 hour rule to lift wages and conditions. This in turn would improve safety. One of the big factors in the Colgan crash was fatigue. The FO had jumpseated from Seattle (4.5 hour flight) the night before and slept in the crew room because she couldn't afford to live in base. The pay was so bad she lived at home.


I don't think there are too many places in the world where pilots commute 5hrs of flight time for their shot haul job. For instance Ryanair has over 80 pilots bases, Delta has 9. Much more opportunity to be based closer to your home.
And the improvement in pay didn't stop jumpseating. It's estimated that 50% of US airline pilots still commute, and the issues with fatigue will still remain. If you want to address fatigue issues address them directly by writing rules to mandate proper rest prior to operating.


Now, you’re a seasoned veteran, a college graduate, an experienced aviator, at least 28-30 and worthy of the right seat of a Boeing or Airbus and the associated salary and responsibility. Merika....


The rest of the world has proven you don't need a university degree, you don't need 5000hrs, you don't need instructor time, you don't need to be 30 to be worthy of sitting in the right seat of a Boeing or Airbus. Plenty of first class airlines putting early twenties, non-university educated, well selected and trained individuals into those seats. No evidence "Merika" has the world's best practice.

[Climb150]

Most airlines have a commuter policy now where you get a certain amout of hotel stays per month to use the night before or the night after your trip finishes. Many airlines also give you a few "no show" days a year if thr flights you commute on are full.

You really do have a choice now where before most regional pilots didnt.

[4runner]

I don't think there are too many places in the world where pilots commute 5hrs of flight time for their shot haul job. For instance Ryanair has over 80 pilots bases, Delta has 9. Much more opportunity to be based closer to your home.
And the improvement in pay didn't stop jumpseating. It's estimated that 50% of US airline pilots still commute, and the issues with fatigue will still remain. If you want to address fatigue issues address them directly by writing rules to mandate proper rest prior to operating.



The rest of the world has proven you don't need a university degree, you don't need 5000hrs, you don't need instructor time, you don't need to be 30 to be worthy of sitting in the right seat of a Boeing or Airbus. Plenty of first class airlines putting early twenties, non-university educated, well selected and trained individuals into those seats. No evidence "Merika" has the world's best practice.

we just get paid more, which was the initial query. I have to go put fuel in my boat now. Twin Yamahas can burn some fuel. Thanks for proving you can fly jets for less $$$ and less qualifications. Well done.

[4runner]

I don't think there are too many places in the world where pilots commute 5hrs of flight time for their shot haul job. For instance Ryanair has over 80 pilots bases, Delta has 9. Much more opportunity to be based closer to your home.
And the improvement in pay didn't stop jumpseating. It's estimated that 50% of US airline pilots still commute, and the issues with fatigue will still remain. If you want to address fatigue issues address them directly by writing rules to mandate proper rest prior to operating.



The rest of the world has proven you don't need a university degree, you don't need 5000hrs, you don't need instructor time, you don't need to be 30 to be worthy of sitting in the right seat of a Boeing or Airbus. Plenty of first class airlines putting early twenties, non-university educated, well selected and trained individuals into those seats. No evidence "Merika" has the world's best practice.

first class? 5 star? What is their salary? More than half of all aircraft and airline pilots are American. We set the bar. If u get paid less, you’re lowering it.

[wiggy]

Most airlines have a commuter policy now where you get a certain amout of hotel stays per month to use the night before or the night after your trip finishes. Many airlines also give you a few "no show" days a year if thr flights you commute on are full..

I must say that sounds remarkably enlightened and employee friendly, sadly I can’t see either policy being introduced at a certain Big Airline in Europe anytime soon.....

[Banana Joe]

'Murica, hell yeah... :hmm:

[Rarife]

Thank you. I agree 100%. Imagine a scenario of a captain incapacitation in rough weather at night with a 250 hours " pilot" having to bring the plane safely on ground. Few will manage ,from my experience. The risk is unacceptable...and it will happen one day or another.
I think that 250 hour pilot should still have safety pilot on board but I know what you mean. However they always told us that the most important thing to success is to convince instructor that we can bring the aircraft back in case something bad happens. And I know there were people fired exactly for this reason.

[Intrance]

we just get paid more, which was the initial query. I have to go put fuel in my boat now. Twin Yamahas can burn some fuel. Thanks for proving you can fly jets for less $$$ and less qualifications. Well done.Luckily you also have those shining examples of the great Murican system like the Atlas 767 FO I mentioned before. If guys like him slip through, I guarantee you there are a whole bunch more flying around, not having half a clue about how useless they are despite their awesome university degree :rolleyes:. And thanks for showing you have at least one pilot with a very ****ty attitude :ok:.

[tiddles52]

Lets face it, planes are also a LOT easier to fly these days. Compare a 1960s Trident or DC9 to todays Airbus with GPS, Alpha-Floor, ILS, HUD, EFIS,ACARS,GPWS, weather radar,laptops etc etc.

A lot of effort has been put in by manufacturers to make aircraft much more foolproof and to try and learn from each and every incident.

G

[felixthecat]

I would hope that a below average 1500hr pilot has a lot more ability than a below average 250hr pilot. At 250hrs you are like wet paint on a wall, and are generally clinging on for bare life against the forces of gravity. At 1500hrs that paint has hopefully had a few fresh coats and set. The paying passengers have a right to feel safe in there seats. Reducing the skill level of new pilots because of the increased reliability of aircraft and the ever increasing push for profits from airlines is not acceptable. There are many many 250 hr pilots out there who would be in a whole world of trouble if the old git in the LHS decided to expire one day.

You dont need a degree to fly an aircraft, you require a specific skill set that isn’t necessarily met by a degree.

[Yury Gagarin]

I would hope that a below average 1500hr pilot has a lot more ability than a below average 250hr pilot. At 250hrs you are like wet paint on a wall, and are generally clinging on for bare life against the forces of gravity. At 1500hrs that paint has hopefully had a few fresh coats and set. The paying passengers have a right to feel safe in there seats. Reducing the skill level of new pilots because of the increased reliability of aircraft and the ever increasing push for profits from airlines is not acceptable. There are many many 250 hr pilots out there who would be in a whole world of trouble if the old git in the LHS decided to expire one day.

You dont need a degree to fly an aircraft, you require a specific skill set that isn’t necessarily met by a degree.
Agreed on all but I would say that I would thas make at least the ATPL theory much harder. The level of ignorance is sometime appalling and a degree would sure help give a lift back to this profession which is becoming ingulfed by weak and therefore prone to accept the unacceptable " pilots" easy to black mail. EASA should do something about ASAP or just disappear.
​​​​​Not long ago I remember asking my FO what phoen was ..answer? An hair dyer...and he was not jocking.

[Mooneyboy]

I flew two days back to back in the same conditions to the same destination. On the first day a MPL cadet on his first day after line check. The second day an FO with thousands of hours turbo prop time and also just released from line training on the airbus. The MPL guy was miles better in every aspect, SAW hand flying ops and tech knowledge. If I had passed out in flight I would have been far happier been with the first guy than the second.

I usually find the people who complain most about low hour cadets is the people who have never flown with them or got a chip on their shoulder because they never got straight on to your middle weight jet.

Let’s face it a more structured sim training schedule taught for that specific jet is far more beneficial than teaching some else straight and level in a c150 for 1500 hrs.

P.s No I wasn’t a 200hr cadet nor a 1500hr ‘sky god’.

[GreenBook]

And what exactly does the 1500 hours on some 20 ton cessna without a yaw damper, VNAV or a decent fms teach you about flying a real jet in a real environment? Nothing. You learn while you do it. Good instruction and capable captains make even the youngest first officers into capable pilots. You need to start somewhere for sure, but why start on a turboprop that has nothing to do with a jet when you can just as well learn on a 737 or an A320

[Sidestick_n_Rudder]

Yeah, right! Let’s make those 250 hours wonders Captains immediately. Judging from the responses on this thread they know it all and can fly better than us, merely mortals with several thousand of hours of experience...

As for the 1500 hrs in a Cessna - it has no VNAV and autopilot and that exactly makes it a more valuable experience, than sitting in an RHS of an A320 watching “managed” modes doing their thing...

[Banana Joe]

Err Sidestick_n_Rudder, it's not black and white. While a 250 hours pilot is just a snowflake, a SEP instructor with 1500 hours in the pattern isn't better either. It's all about the quality of training, aptitude, attitude and quality of flying.
​​​​​The 1500 hours requirement in the US was aknee jerk reaction and the fact you can get out with less hours only because you have a degree is laughable.

[cessnaxpilot]

And what exactly does the 1500 hours on some 20 ton cessna without a yaw damper, VNAV or a decent fms teach you about flying a real jet in a real environment? Nothing. You learn while you do it. Good instruction and capable captains make even the youngest first officers into capable pilots. You need to start somewhere for sure, but why start on a turboprop that has nothing to do with a jet when you can just as well learn on a 737 or an A320

Many hours in a small plane can teach you how to fly. These are all machines with wings and the 4 forces, but crews seem to forget that. There are several recent accidents where crews spend time watching screens while the plane slowly departs from controlled flight.

i flew gliders, crop dusters, banner tow, single pilot freight, aerobatics... all in the first 1500 hours. I think I use the skills learned in those first 1500 hours every time I fly. The military does a great job teaching student to be qualified with low hours. The multi crew training doesn’t put you in many manual modes at the edge of the envelope, and there have been incidents where that lack of skill shows. Pilots are great programmers today, but start removing paths and lines and automation and the proficient skill set is diminished. It’s expensive to train to the degree that we’d all like. I have friends at Lufthansa who fondly remember starting out in gliders as part of their program. They believe it’s made them better pilots.

[Banana Joe]

i flew gliders, crop dusters, banner tow, single pilot freight, aerobatics...
And that's quality flying in my opinion, not the pattern. Especially gliders and single pilot night freight ops - we do that with airliners in Europe though.

[GreenBook]

Yeah, right! Let’s make those 250 hours wonders Captains immediately. Judging from the responses on this thread they know it all and can fly better than us, merely mortals with several thousand of hours of experience...

As for the 1500 hrs in a Cessna - it has no VNAV and autopilot and that exactly makes it a more valuable experience, than sitting in an RHS of an A320 watching “managed” modes doing their thing...



Some people seem to be very upset that they work for companies that don't allow handflying on a 737 or an A320. I have those 'several thousands' of hours as well and I spent none of them on a tiny plane. Still for some unknown reason I can actually fly because I was taught by great people in a company that not only allows but encourages manual flight without any automation.

[Intrance]

Yeah, right! Let’s make those 250 hours wonders Captains immediately. Judging from the responses on this thread they know it all and can fly better than us, merely mortals with several thousand of hours of experience...

As for the 1500 hrs in a Cessna - it has no VNAV and autopilot and that exactly makes it a more valuable experience, than sitting in an RHS of an A320 watching “managed” modes doing their thing...


You exaggerate what we are saying, exactly as you exaggerate the value of those 1500hrs. All that some of us are pointing out is that being a good pilot is not a matter of getting those 1500hrs. It is a matter of proper training, proper attitude and aptitude. If you get someone out of flight school with those qualities, they can be miles better than the guy that comes from 1500hrs or more of flying around on whatever else type of plane, picking up (bad) habits that don't work on the type you fly and who is slow to adapt.

You obviously haven't had the luck to come across some of the good new pilots. I have. No one is suggesting they are 250hr wonders. But they come into the plane, do things by the book, pick up practical experience quick, ask the right questions etc. Hell, most of them will take any chance to hand fly, especially with a nudge of encouragement to do so. It is too easy to discount fresh pilots because they do not have 1500hrs. You would rob yourself of a good amount of pilots sitting next to you in the cockpit, who have a solid foundation and aptitude for airline flying and will only get better with experience.

Spoken as a mere mortal in the LHS with several thousand hours of experience (non automated turboprop hours included)...

In my opinion a 1500hr wall would perhaps be a short term improvement, but exactly those kids you guys hate will be the ones that will climb over the wall. Those kids with more money than ability.

[GreenBook]

Many hours in a small plane can teach you how to fly. These are all machines with wings and the 4 forces, but crews seem to forget that. There are several recent accidents where crews spend time watching screens while the plane slowly departs from controlled flight.

i flew gliders, crop dusters, banner tow, single pilot freight, aerobatics... all in the first 1500 hours. I think I use the skills learned in those first 1500 hours every time I fly. The military does a great job teaching student to be qualified with low hours. The multi crew training doesn’t put you in many manual modes at the edge of the envelope, and there have been incidents where that lack of skill shows. Pilots are great programmers today, but start removing paths and lines and automation and the proficient skill set is diminished. It’s expensive to train to the degree that we’d all like. I have friends at Lufthansa who fondly remember starting out in gliders as part of their program. They believe it’s made them better pilots.


Well you make a good point about deviations from controlled flight, however, I think most people would agree that the overall loss of flying skills during an airline career has nothing to do with background and personal 'level', but more with company culture and what they do and do not allow. If you watch a few Justplanes on youtube and you see a crew autolanding an aircraft in LHR in cavok and 0 wind, then I think you could have spent 15.000 hours in a crop duster, you still will lose everything your learn. This is a culture problem, not a training or personal experience level problem.

[calypso]

While I agree that experience is not the only metric

Every "good" pilot gets better with experience
Every "Bad" pilot gets a little less bad with experience


On top of that It is always better to scare yourself ****less on your own in a little Cessna and swear to never do that again than to do the same as a captain in a 737.

There are capts in Europe that have never diverted, never done a GA, never have had to use the QRH in flight. They are flying with guys that are trailing twelve miles behind the tail. The only reason nothing happens is because these are extremely reliable machines

[cessnaxpilot]

While I agree that experience is not the only metric

Every "good" pilot gets better with experience
Every "Bad" pilot gets a little less bad with experience


On top of that It is always better to scare yourself ****less on your own in a little Cessna and swear to never do that again than to do the same as a captain in a 737.

There are capts in Europe that have never diverted, never done a GA, never have had to use the QRH in flight. They are flying with guys that are trailing twelve miles behind the tail. The only reason nothing happens is because these are extremely reliable machines

very true.

someone keeps mentioning “1500 hours in the pattern” and I don’t really know anyone who actually just does 1500 hours in the pattern. That being said, I agree that if someone spends 1500 hours teaching flying, that’s not especially valuable experience. I do find that teaching things like L/D, laminar flow, shifting CP, etc makes one think about those concepts and brings one to a better understanding. Ask most pilots to explain Mach tuck and how the shock wave changes the CP and I’ll bet you get a weak explanation.

to the OP asking about the market, do I understand correctly that Different pilots at the same carrier operate on different contracts? It seems like the airlines can easily use this to divide the pilot group.

the US has benefited from a strong economy for the airlines, a shortage of qualified pilots, and pilot groups that are cohesive. It’s like a marriage. Once someone gets hired at an airline, they tend to think that’s their life and they work to make it better. I may be wrong, (I’m only saying this from reading on here), but it seems like a lot of people with an airline job in Europe keep shopping for a different job. It’s definitely a different market.

As a casual outside observer, it seems the BA strike didn’t achieve much. I wish it had. We are all better served by a strong market for pilots everywhere.

[UAV689]

This is an extremely interesting debate.

Firstly, supply and demand dictates wages in Europe in the main, with some union nudging. The 1500hr rule was knee jerk in USA, causing the shortage which drove up wages.

Does does 1500hrs make someone a better pilot? Maybe.

Sometimes a candidate requires experience to grow themselves, mature their character, it’s not all just hand eye coordination, a lot of soft skills to learn. I see this a lot with new cadet firsts officers, lacking in people and communication skills, then you see a mature second career modular cadet pilot that has all these attributes from their previous career/life experience. Perhaps the 1500hrs flying will involve a few hundred banner towing being self sufficient, a few hundred instructional, giving briefings, learning how to honestly debrief students, a few hundred flying single pilot freight work, IFR at night etc etc, producing a well rounded candidate,

Also a huge portion of this is down to selection and training as well. For example the military, looks in-depth at personality traits and leadership potential, then has a highly regimented officer training followed by flight training which will see people on the front line in something very fast and pointy after about 400 (not 100% sure) or so hours.

The selection process in flight training schools, is basically can you pay for it (they pretend to do tests, I doubt anyone fails..) the training is then often taught by a few categories of instructors, new CPLs doing their first job passing through n bad habits they were taught a few months before, or instructors that have never passed an airline selection for various reasons and become career instructors (even if they are not suitable to teach...) or retired Air Force/airliner types often fairly ancient and with dated attitudes to teaching, or the rarest kind, someone that loves teaching and has or is currently an operational pilot for the love of it.

The training syllabus is then also ancient, teaching things as pointless as timed turns (when was the last time this was done in anger? WW2?) It needs dragging into the modern days, being relevant to the skills and techniques relevant to the class/type of operation the student will go into.

Then at some airlines the last selection process is just some maths tests, a “tell me a time when”type interview and go in the sim for a v1 cut and raw data ILS.

This is still leaves untested much of the soft traits that you can rarely see until it is too late on the line, sometimes during a non normal event.

The entire process is not fit, designed by ancient regulators out of touch with reality after being lobbied by airlines desperate for crews that want to lower standards and speed up the process.

[KayPam]

first class? 5 star? What is their salary? More than half of all aircraft and airline pilots are American. We set the bar. If u get paid less, you’re lowering it.
For example, the Air France cadet programme put people with less than 300 hours in the right seat of a medium jet.
However, 70% of them are educated up to master's degree and 70% of these master's degrees are specialized in aerospace engineering.
Lufthansa also does it. Easyjet also does it. British Airways also does it...
They get paid a decent salary. I can't speak for every airline but at ours, cadets will get 4000-4500 whereas experienced pilots with 1500 hours on heavy aircraft would get 15% more, that is 4600-5200. Actually, out of the 130-260k (depending on if you count direct or direct + indirect costs) that they cost to the airline, they will just pay back about 40k, in 5 years.

Success rates for the assessments are about 2-3%.
Even though there are requirements in the selection process specifically designed at reducing the number of "dreamers" who will apply randomly, there are still thousands of candidates.

[UAV689]

For example, the Air France cadet programme put people with less than 300 hours in the right seat of a medium jet.
However, 70% of them are educated up to master's degree and 70% of these master's degrees are specialized in aerospace engineering.
Lufthansa also does it. Easyjet also does it. British Airways also does it...
They get paid a decent salary. I can't speak for every airline but at ours, cadets will get 4000-4500 whereas experienced pilots with 1500 hours on heavy aircraft would get 15% more, that is 4600-5200. Actually, out of the 130-260k (depending on if you count direct or direct + indirect costs) that they cost to the airline, they will just pay back about 40k, in 5 years.

Success rates for the assessments are about 2-3%.
Even though there are requirements in the selection process specifically designed at reducing the number of "dreamers" who will apply randomly, there are still thousands of candidates.

I have been lucky to teach recently some AF cadets their basic phase single engine, and they have been some of the best students I have had the pleasure of teaching.

Which to me shows the importance of pilot selection at an early stage is vital to overall safety. (that being said, they still had the accident that dark night over the pacific)

Unfortunately across the world it is now a case of if you can pay for pilot training, you will be a pilot for someone, somewhere. I have seen all to often too many pilots that do it for the so called "prestige" off the back of the bank of mum and dad. What is equally as disappointing, is that many of this crop also fall out of love of flying early on, when the reality hits home of just how brutal this job can be on one's personal life, often they never realised just how unsuitable they were for the career.

Can you imagine if NATS in the UK took this approach towards ATC selection? I would say widely regarded as the best ATC in the world, partly due to its early stage selection and training process.

[4runner]

The US had the Great Recession and the pilot market is just now recovering. I was furloughed twice before I was 30 and ended up overseas until 2017. I was greatful for the job. We may have taken a few concessionary contracts during this time, but by and large, we work cohesively as a nation and a group of professionals to maintain the viability of our profession and the safety. ALPA in particular has been instrumental in this strategy. As for not requiring a degree and all these qualifications such as 1500 hours, you may be correct that they are not REQUIRED. They are and have been, a good prerequisite to maintain a solid, and reliable group ov aviators. Someone advertising that they can accomplish a task or trade with less education, experience and qualifications for less money isn’t conducive to a career. We call these people scabs if they cross an organized labor action.

[tottigol]

The 1500 hours and an ATP AMEL certificate requirement is written in blood.
The US industry was in the same state as today's European Air Transport market, overextended junior pilots with barely 500 hours flying 8 segments a day getting paid 25.000 to 30.000$ a year was the norm in regional or subsidiary airlines.
A couple of deadly crashes and the involvement o politicians changed that.
Today, getting a job under part 121, requires the pilot to have an ATP AMEL, but before having that, the requirement is to take an ATP/CTP preparatory course with 30 hours of GS in subjects like CRM, high altitude phsiology and others, plus 12 hours in a simulator of an over 40.00lbs type.
Yet they are running out of pilots at the bottom.
Shall Europe catch up? Where is the PIC formation mentality?

[rudestuff]

Europe has long required an MCC before a first multi crew type rating, slightly more to it than the ATP-CTP. They also require 500 hours of multi crew experience before getting an ATP. In the US you can get an ATP (that's right, the qualification needed to *command* a multi crew aircraft) in a single pilot piston aircraft with zero multi crew experience. I do hope Europe catches up.

[Rarife]

I think we are turning the discussion to the wrong direction. Honestly, there are already schools which offer pay X for ATPL(A) (CPL,MEP/IR) or pay twice more and we get you a job. With 1500 hours it will just turn into pay 5 times more and we get you job. Job at local low cost for €1000 after you did 1300 hours for free somewhere and somehow. This will not help.

Anyway some people here say that cadets are fine, some people say that they are horrible. Either someone is wrong here or the quality of cadets varies way too much.

This looks like "how to prevent people from flying" and I believe it should be more "how to teach people how to fly and what we really want".

I was happy with my school and ground studies (I do not say it was good because you will burn me at the stake) but when I compare it to other kind of studies I can not believe how little is enough or that parts I though are mandatory are simply non-existent in other schools.

[KayPam]

I have been lucky to teach recently some AF cadets their basic phase single engine, and they have been some of the best students I have had the pleasure of teaching.

Which to me shows the importance of pilot selection at an early stage is vital to overall safety. (that being said, they still had the accident that dark night over the pacific)

I'm sending you some details via PM, but basically 447 had nothing to do with cadet training (pilots had 3000 and 6500 hours so way above the 1500 hours rule).
It may have had a bit more to do with documentation and training at the time. Everything was rebuilt from the ground up. Entire departments were thanked. In the "made redundant" way.

[Consol]

I'm sending you some details via PM, but basically 447 had nothing to do with cadet training (pilots had 3000 and 6500 hours so way above the 1500 hours rule).
It may have had a bit more to do with documentation and training at the time. Everything was rebuilt from the ground up. Entire departments were thanked. In the "made redundant" way.
KayPam, if you are not breaching confidentiality can you elaborate? 447 was the game changer and we all need to know as much as possible about how it happened and how we can prevent it ever happening again both by training and by culture change.

[Grav]

I'm sending you some details via PM, but basically 447 had nothing to do with cadet training (pilots had 3000 and 6500 hours so way above the 1500 hours rule).
It may have had a bit more to do with documentation and training at the time. Everything was rebuilt from the ground up. Entire departments were thanked. In the "made redundant" way.

I would like to know more, too. I think many others could benefit from the information you can share.

[4runner]

Europe has long required an MCC before a first multi crew type rating, slightly more to it than the ATP-CTP. They also require 500 hours of multi crew experience before getting an ATP. In the US you can get an ATP (that's right, the qualification needed to *command* a multi crew aircraft) in a single pilot piston aircraft with zero multi crew experience. I do hope Europe catches up.

in Europe, you can too. It’s called a “frozen” atpl. In the US, our MCC is part of the sim training, partnering, check ride and line training. Even if you were a single engine fighter jock, you’ll still have some leadership skills from the military and can adapt. We have some single pilot, metroliner cargo pilots coming in line. That flew in Alaska. Those guys are abit odd...

[Oriana]

The equipment we fly is so good - it masks alot of latent skills issues.

All things being equal - you can't beat experience.

And usually, it's those without it - that don't understand that.

[FullWings]

Lets face it, planes are also a LOT easier to fly these days. Compare a 1960s Trident or DC9 to todays Airbus with GPS, Alpha-Floor, ILS, HUD, EFIS,ACARS,GPWS, weather radar,laptops etc etc.
Yes, but they are a LOT harder to operate when those systems start badly misbehaving. Older aircraft were hand-flown much more and automatics disconnected on the first sign of trouble. Today, it’s the other way round.

To be completely on top of your game in a modern airliner, you need serious technical knowledge (sometimes quite esoteric), good “soft” skills and an ability to revert to stick’n'rudder and basic navigation should you need it. That is a difficult combination to acquire and to keep current. How many hours in Direct Law on standby instruments does the average A3XX pilot have? Same with PFCs disconnected in a 777/787? You can be a competent operator without that experience but the outer reaches of the envelope will provide challenges.

The equipment we fly is so good - it masks alot of latent skills issues.

All things being equal - you can't beat experience.

And usually, it's those without it - that don't understand that.
Agreed. But everyone starts with no experience and it is more difficult now under many airlines' SOPs to get the exposure to develop those skills in the first place. The answer is often more training but that costs money with no directly attributable benefit in that financial quarter, so it doesn’t happen that often.

I’m a fan of the “self improver” route, as well as the intensive airline-focussed course; strength in diversity. The one notable difference I find with those who’ve worked their way up through GA, light commercial aviation, etc. is that pretty much all of them enjoy flying and appear happier in the job than some of their colleagues...

[Rottweiler22]

Sadly, I feel there’s a lot of tarring with the same brush going on here.

I was a product of the integrated system, and within a couple of weeks of finishing training was on a jet type rating for a European airline. Many will say “Ah, well you’ve just bought your job”, and think what you like. Far be it from me to make a modular versus integrated thread, but some points need to be made.

What I can say is that there are exceptional cadets from integrated schemes, there are diabolical ones. Same as there are exceptional products of the modular route, as there are terrible ones.

I know 1000 hour ex- integrated cadets who trainers say have better flying skill, situational awareness, decision making and CRM than most captains do. I also know 1000 hour ex cadets who can’t land the aircraft in still air. And I completely agree, there are plenty of people with wealthy families who want a “glamourous” job, and to be seen strutting through Manchester airport with their uniform and Samsonite luggage.

I’ve flown with captains who preach about the thousands of hours they spent “paying their dues” towing banners or instructing, before they eventually got their first airline job. The most vocal ones are shocking, but plenty are very good. The same with FOs. I really can’t say who is better or worse, as every aspect has good and bad.

I can’t help but think that quality control should be done through airline selection, initial training, and checks. And I do think that plenty of airlines do this quite well. If a 200 hour cadets has a better sim and assessment performance than a 2000 hour banner tower, then they should get the job. Regardless of the “dues they’ve paid”. I honestly don’t see a single valid point of establishing a 1500 hour rule in Europe. Especially when in my airline the most vocal advocates of this are the ones who know they don’t have the ability to move to a better airline, and know they’ll be outperformed by cadets.

[FlightDetent]

Rottweiler22 Now, that's a post I enjoyed reading.

[misd-agin]

The issues been studied in the U.S. Guys with flight training instruction, which is the overwhelming majority of new hires at the regionals, do better in initial training than guys doing jobs with little supervision like banner towing, glider towing, and pipe line flying. Every person knows of exceptions.

Does anyone think you're a worse pilot if you've flown more? Age becomes a factor at some point, I'd say around 50-60, but most people gain some knowledge and experience with longevity. But a factor in long haul flying is fewer flights, That can be an issue vs the n/b pilots doing more legs on one trip than some w/b pilots do all year.

You don't need a college degree to get an airline job in the U.S. It was a very low probability path in the past but the current system has plenty of opportunity, but still a minority opportunity path, for non college degreed candidates.

Europe doesn't have the GA/light aircraft training and flying system the U.S. has. I'd be surprised to see it change to a U.S. style training system.

[misd-agin]

Listening to a U.S. golfer talk on a podcast yesterday. He has a light airplane. He was asked about his scariest event. At the time he had about 300 hrs TT. He mentions that he now has about 1,000 hrs and wouldn't do what happened at 300 hrs occur now that he has 1,000 hrs. That can't be taught in a simulator. There is value in experience, especially when you're starting out. In those 700 hrs he learned more about being a pilot than a airline pilot would going from 20,000 hrs to 25,000 hrs if they didn't switch aircraft.

[Banana Joe]

Are you really comparing a golfer flying for hobby to a professional pilot that goes through checking every 6 months just to try to make your point? Really?

[calypso]

I know 1000 hour ex- integrated cadets who trainers say have better flying skill, situational awareness, decision making and CRM than most captains do.

I have also seen enough command assessments to know that the brilliant cadet that seemingly can do no wrong will often fall to pieces when put in the hot seat without a captains support. They know everything they need to do and yet they are unable to prioritise and organise themselves to get it done in an orderly, safe and expeditious fashion.

If nothing else at the very least every six months you are in the sim learning new failures, watching new guys deal with problems, leaking your wounds if you get it wrong... therefore every six months you have a few more hours and you are a little better.

Pilots are for the most part made not born. They are made by instruction, study, practice, imitation and exposure. Some people will never make good pilots regardless of hours but that does not in any way mean that most pilots will not improve with experience. If you think that you are so good already that experience cannot teach you anything you are heading for a hard lesson.

[felixthecat]

Listening to a U.S. golfer talk on a podcast yesterday. He has a light airplane. He was asked about his scariest event. At the time he had about 300 hrs TT. He mentions that he now has about 1,000 hrs and wouldn't do what happened at 300 hrs occur now that he has 1,000 hrs. That can't be taught in a simulator. There is value in experience, especially when you're starting out. In those 700 hrs he learned more about being a pilot than a airline pilot would going from 20,000 hrs to 25,000 hrs if they didn't switch aircraft.

Somehow he has 1000hrs and learnt more going from 300-1000 (tel:300-1000)hrs learning more than an airline pilot going from 20,000-25,000. How on earth would he know that? He by his own admission has only 1000 hrs TT and is a private pilot. A private pilot who sounds very overconfident at that!

[Consol]

The biz jet world does give safe harbor to some really appalling aviators, or some very strange people who would not otherwise survive in a more standardised airline world. I emphasise "some"

100% true, flew with one who was a class case a long time ago. Aircraft damaged, passengers endangered, yelled at for trying to keep him inside limits, no fuel, speed or ice awareness, daily cringe stuff. Thing was a lot of passengers thought he was fantastic.
We are generally well protected from these types in airlines but they do show up.

[Fly Aiprt]

Somehow he has 1000hrs and learnt more going from 300-1000 (tel:300-1000)hrs learning more than an airline pilot going from 20,000-25,000. How on earth would he know that? He by his own admission has only 1000 hrs TT and is a private pilot. A private pilot who sounds very overconfident at that!

What if a 25,000 hrs airline pilot told him?

[4runner]

Jesus what did I just read.

Disagree completely.
Flying a piston is very different from airline flying.
As I said before we had an instructor recently wash out from our airline. 8 years of instructor experience. He could fly and land but his commercial experience was so bad they had to let him go. 3 attempts at LT.
Our best pilots coming through are MPL guys/gals at the moment.

Other points have been made systems knowledge. I don’t fly and Airbus but from what I have read and heard you can get into trouble if you don’t know your systems.


you can get abit behind the curve, being in piston and GA flying for that long. There was probably a reason he didn’t make the jump before. Hell, I’m scary when I go back to GA. My buddy just bought a Cardinal. We were 2 767 pilots, bumbling our way around.

[hans brinker]

Somehow he has 1000hrs and learnt more going from 300-1000 (tel:300-1000)hrs learning more than an airline pilot going from 20,000-25,000. How on earth would he know that? He by his own admission has only 1000 hrs TT and is a private pilot. A private pilot who sounds very overconfident at that!

Well, not sure if I am qualified to answer with only 12.5K hours, but if I think back how much I learned between 300 and a 1000 hours, and I multiply by 2 what I’ve learned in the last 2.5K I think the private pilot has a point.

[CargoOne]

What our US colleagues imply is that higher paid pilots are safer, and to achieve that they have introduced a 1500 rule.
In Europe a guy with 1500+ SEP time have a very slim chance even to get an interview because it means he have a several years of flying in unregulated environment developing uncontrolled habits at something which has zero relevance to airline flying.

[Yury Gagarin]

What our US colleagues imply is that higher paid pilots are safer, and to achieve that they have introduced a 1500 rule.
In Europe a guy with 1500+ SEP time have a very slim chance even to get an interview because it means he have a several years of flying in unregulated environment developing uncontrolled habits at something which has zero relevance to airline flying.
Bull****. I fly regurarly with unscreened p2f morons that cannot land the plane and should I have a hearth attack there are very high chances everybody will die. The cadet approach is good only for established airlines with the resources to select and train the right people. Still not having spent an hour alone in the air is not a good thing.. The only few good ones are those who did some kind of flying before getting into the cockpit of an airliner. The rest are seat warmers, paid ( poorly)passengers with attitudes and daddys money selfie expert with zero talent and poor English that would not pass a screening as bus drivers. Something has to be done to stop the pilot milling industry.. The market is not saturad of pilot..but of wandering bombs.

[ehwatezedoing]

But Europe already have its “weeding out” system, it is those fourteen EASA ATPL exams!
Circumnavigating the lack of flying experience by beefing up theory through the roof!

So asking to implement a 1500TT rule in Europe would be like asking a complete revamp of the ATPL theory in the States :}

[iggy]

is guys going from flying school to command of large airliners in 5 years of frankly very narrow experience

I have seen two and a half years from first time in a cockpit to Command of a medium jet. That is 5 recurrent checks. That is 40 hours of emergencies and lofts before being in charge of another cadet in the cockpit.

[hans brinker]

But Europe already have its “weeding out” system, it is those fourteen EASA ATPL exams!
Circumnavigating the lack of flying experience by beefing up theory through the roof!

So asking to implement a 1500TT rule in Europe would be like asking a complete revamp of the ATPL theory in the States :}



In effect, they have. Pretty much every airline pilot in the USA has a college degree. Yes, it doesn't have to be an aviation degree. But I submit a lot of the E-ATPL theorie isn't very practical either.

[Mansnothot]

I have seen two and a half years from first time in a cockpit to Command of a medium jet. That is 5 recurrent checks. That is 40 hours of emergencies and lofts before being in charge of another cadet in the cockpit.

I’m confused, are you saying this is sufficient experience or are you saying it’s not? Because if you’re saying it is let’s be honest, it’s 40 hours of simulated emergencies, zero actually emergency situations, and by no means enough to be a competent commander. Let’s say during your flying career on average you experience 1 big non normal situation per year. That means after 10 years you’ve got 10 different situations in your past to draw lessons from, after 2.5 years you will only have 2. I know which level of experience I would prefer in my captains.

[iggy]

I’m confused, are you saying this is sufficient experience or are you saying it’s not?

Previous poster said Command after 5 years is an example of being unprepared. I am saying it can be much worse than that.
Any pilot jumping on the left seat of a medium jet with that experience is ignorant about the risk. Since neither the airlines nor the pilots are being able to behave themselves in this regard I see urgent to put measures in place to stop this madness, being those measures total time, number of recurrent checks, years as commercial pilot...

Of course, those pilots taking the Command so soon are doing it for less salary or paying for it. I have rejected the Command several times because the salary offered was even less than FO.

[Yury Gagarin]

Previous poster said Command after 5 years is an example of being unprepared. I am saying it can be much worse than that.
Any pilot jumping on the left seat of a medium jet with that experience is ignorant about the risk. Since neither the airlines nor the pilots are being able to behave themselves in this regard I see urgent to put measures in place to stop this madness, being those measures total time, number of recurrent checks, years as commercial pilot...

Of course, those pilots taking the Command so soon are doing it for less salary or paying for it. I have rejected the Command several times because the salary offered was even less than FO.
100% agreed!!! I have seen a few episodes of 2500TT hours poorly trained captains with 500 hours TT P2F FO getting very close to kill everybody on board. Just by luck it did not happen..but it will. No layer of protection left..

[Yury Gagarin]

Previous poster said Command after 5 years is an example of being unprepared. I am saying it can be much worse than that.
Any pilot jumping on the left seat of a medium jet with that experience is ignorant about the risk. Since neither the airlines nor the pilots are being able to behave themselves in this regard I see urgent to put measures in place to stop this madness, being those measures total time, number of recurrent checks, years as commercial pilot...

Of course, those pilots taking the Command so soon are doing it for less salary or paying for it. I have rejected the Command several times because the salary offered was even less than FO.
100% agreed!!! I have seen a few episodes of 2500TT hours poorly trained captains with 500 hours TT P2F FO getting very close to kill everybody on board. Just by luck it did not happen..but it will. No layer of protection left. Pure madness driven by greed. Less expert the pilots lesser the salary offered and accepted. This must end.

[arketip]

zero actually emergency situations,


In 30 years as a professional pilot I never had to declare an emergency. Am I a bad pilot?

[4runner]

But Europe already have its “weeding out” system, it is those fourteen EASA ATPL exams!
Circumnavigating the lack of flying experience by beefing up theory through the roof!

So asking to implement a 1500TT rule in Europe would be like asking a complete revamp of the ATPL theory in the States :}

and the ATPL exams are so difficult, it’s the equivalent of a college degree!!!!

[PaulH1]

[QUOTE]The biz jet world does give safe harbor to some really appalling aviators, or some very strange people who would not otherwise survive in a more standardised airline world. I emphasise "some"!
/QUOTE]

Having been in the training role in the Biz Jet world for some time I can say that there are also "some" appalling operators coming from the Airline world!
There are major differences between the skills required for Airline and Biz Jet operations and what is good for one is not necessarily good for the other.
For instance: operating into an airfield outside controlled airspace where a 'cloud break' from a military radar followed by a VFR leg to land on a limited length runway is required. Or flying into White Plains (New York) or Opa Locka (Miami) where a radar to visual approach is the norm. Good lookout and Airmanship skills are a must. I have flown with ex-airline pilots who did not have a clue. Some were very good though.

[dr dre]

Previous poster said Command after 5 years is an example of being unprepared. I am saying it can be much worse than that.
Any pilot jumping on the left seat of a medium jet with that experience is ignorant about the risk. Since neither the airlines nor the pilots are being able to behave themselves in this regard I see urgent to put measures in place to stop this madness, being those measures total time, number of recurrent checks, years as commercial pilot.

5 years from flight school to A320 Captain and 600hr TT FO:

Ural Airlines Flight 178 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural_Airlines_Flight_178)

They did fine. No "madness" there. No pilot at a reputable carrier is going to be checked out as a Captain unless a highly experienced training department concurs. Under the US System you can become a Captain of a Regional jet after as little as 1000hrs prior to an airline (instructing in light aircraft) and then 1000hrs as an FO, just over a year's worth of operational airline flying. And in a market that's so desperate for pilots that a lot of those who shouldn't be in a flight deck will be (Atlas Air for example). That's the real madness. A Euro-style pilot who was selected and trained for airline flying from day one and has spent a good 4-5 years in the right hand seat doing multiple sectors a day and getting exposed to Weather, Traffic, Culture, Passenger, Mechanical issues on a daily basis would be a much better option.

[misd-agin]

Are you really comparing a golfer flying for hobby to a professional pilot that goes through checking every 6 months just to try to make your point? Really?

Low time and low experience is always that. That's the point. The example was just a version of that. If the professional training compensates for low time/experience why don't they just hire them into the left seat? CA Cadet fly with FO Cadet?

Want an airline story about new guys? How about going into a tough city as a new Captain. Restricted airport but the restriction can be waived by the Chief Pilot. New Captain Ernie telling the story "I tell CS I'm not legal." "Oh, you are. The Chief Pilot waived the restriction." "Great. At least the other guys will be experienced guys. I see this young guy coming towards me - oh, new F/E. He walks up and says "I'm your FO." At this point I go 'oh ****'. And then the F/E shows up. He's even newer and younger! I'm not sure they've even started shaving. Combined less than 8 months with the company between them. Both just off IOE." The story gets even funnier. Holding trying to avoid diverting. He's coordinating with the company weather agent at the field about the weather, diversion, etc, Gas is going out the tail pipes and the clock is running down....when suddenly the FO slams the throttles to idle and starts descending "ATC cleared us for the approach." (In a simulator no one worries about running out of gas). 727-100's weren't the tightest airplane and the F/E rapidly tries to manage the loss of air pressure....and screws it up. Instead of the cargo outflow switch he turns off a pack. Two young guys moving way to fast in a scenario that training had never presented. (all professionally trained...). BTW, the cabin's already at 8,000' for the mountain airport landing. And the cabin altitude warning goes off....and their stress goes even higher. "LEVEL OFF!! PUT THAT PACK BACK ON!" Huge pressure spike as the pack and power come on together. LOL. Ernie was a classic story Italian teller. Eyes flashing, hands flying, it was a classic. He's pissed. Reins in the unruly mob and they eventually land ops normal.

The odds of that scenario happening with guys that had 1-2 years in their respective jobs would have been much, much, much lower. But hey, at least they were professionally trained. :-/

[misd-agin]

Jesus what did I just read.

Disagree completely.
Flying a piston is very different from airline flying.
As I said before we had an instructor recently wash out from our airline. 8 years of instructor experience. He could fly and land but his commercial experience was so bad they had to let him go. 3 attempts at LT.
Our best pilots coming through are MPL guys/gals at the moment.

Other points have been made systems knowledge. I don’t fly and Airbus but from what I have read and heard you can get into trouble if you don’t know your systems.


Boeing's have some similar issues. FCLH thrust hold, altitude level off settings in FLCH vs VNAV, inappropriate use of V/S at altitude and climbing, or descending, at a rate outside of the ability of the airplane.

I agree that flying a piston is different. But experience helps in learning, especially at the lower end of experience.

[misd-agin]

What if a 25,000 hrs airline pilot told him?

Thank you. Or maybe a 25,000 hr Captain, who at one point had 300 hrs (at a regional airline), or 1,000 hrs, or 20,000 hrs, or 25,000 hrs, made the observation?

My post - Listening to a U.S. golfer talk on a podcast yesterday. He has a light airplane. He was asked about his scariest event. At the time he had about 300 hrs TT. He mentions that he now has about 1,000 hrs and wouldn't do what happened at 300 hrs occur now that he has 1,000 hrs.

^ That is him.

This was my comment - That can't be taught in a simulator. There is value in experience, especially when you're starting out. In those 700 hrs he learned more about being a pilot than a airline pilot would going from 20,000 hrs to 25,000 hrs if they didn't switch aircraft.

We just don't learn that much after 500-1000 hrs in a new airplane. IMO. I've only done that about about 10x over my career. There's a big learning curve, regardless of your previous experience, for about 100 hrs. After 500 hrs you've seen most of the issues. After 1,000 hrs you'd be a lot more challenged if you went to a new aircraft and started the cycle over again.

[Yury Gagarin]

I find myself at least partially agreeing with everyone. The focus seems to be on FO experience levels, but the scariest thing for me, (particular to countries outside the US) is guys going from flying school to command of large airliners in 5 years of frankly very narrow experience, SOP parroting, ILS to ILS, groundhog day type flying in the RHS, with very few day to day airmanship or handling challenges. And the misplaced arrogance/complacency that sometimes goes with it as they approach their command. As has been mentioned, the shiny veneer of young Captain "Know it all", can peel away very fast when circumstances don't stick to their rehearsed script.
Spot on.Time for change

[4runner]

Thank you. Or maybe a 25,000 hr Captain, who at one point had 300 hrs (at a regional airline), or 1,000 hrs, or 20,000 hrs, or 25,000 hrs, made the observation?

My post - Listening to a U.S. golfer talk on a podcast yesterday. He has a light airplane. He was asked about his scariest event. At the time he had about 300 hrs TT. He mentions that he now has about 1,000 hrs and wouldn't do what happened at 300 hrs occur now that he has 1,000 hrs.

^ That is him.

This was my comment - That can't be taught in a simulator. There is value in experience, especially when you're starting out. In those 700 hrs he learned more about being a pilot than a airline pilot would going from 20,000 hrs to 25,000 hrs if they didn't switch aircraft.

We just don't learn that much after 500-1000 (tel:500-1000) hrs in a new airplane. IMO. I've only done that about about 10x over my career. There's a big learning curve, regardless of your previous experience, for about 100 hrs. After 500 hrs you've seen most of the issues. After 1,000 hrs you'd be a lot more challenged if you went to a new aircraft and started the cycle over again.

you do as an instructor, typically. You start with commercial or private students in single engine, then graduate to multi engine students and complex aircraft students. I don’t have 25000 hours, I’ve 1/3 that. I learn something new about the airplane, myself, management, people skills and flying everyday.

[WestonFlyer]

whilst not agreeing or disagreeing with your post there is absolutely zero evidence (real studied accident and incident data as opposed to anecdotal) to back up your statement. And like others I have flown with “cadets” with virtually no experience that can put many oldies to shame and I have flown with many experienced pilots that I wouldn’t trust to be in charge of a TV remote control, and everything in between.


Completely agree. I also think that pilot saturation generated by the 250hr EU style hiring has meant that airlines can pick better candidates.

1500 hrs in a 172 is a waste in terms of commercial jet/prop flying.

[lucille]

Why is everyone using the banner towing and flying around the circuit as the example of basic experience. It plainly isn’t. Most of us cut our teeth single pilot IFR flying night freight in PA-31s with no radar and dodgy autopilots. No one is a hero.. all of us did this, it was just a job which paid our bills. And before that, we were bush flying in DHC2, C206 and C210s. No magenta line anywhere. Who even knew magenta was a colour in those days?

So back to the topic. Technically, a fully autonomous airliner can be built tomorrow. Pilots really are not needed anymore. Getting the paying passenger to accept this is the major hurdle facing airlines.

The path to every airline managers wet dream is being paved by new technologies, automation and a very enhanced ATC system. You have to try really, really hard to crash these days. What this boils down to is that an experienced pilot will no longer be required. CPDLC is the thus edge of the wedge. not long before it’s next generation drives your autopilot directly. All that’s needed is just one guy up front who can read a manual and in extremis bang it down on a runway somewhere in case all that automation fails. 100 hours total time, all of which obtained in the sim will suffice. T&Cs will continue to spiral down the toilet bowl. A brave new world indeed.

[Diana777]

A 200-hr pilot is faster to create than a 1500-hr pilot, and the difficult process of getting 1500hrs when you're not hired directly into a Ryanair or Easyjet definitely culls many of the wannabes. Consequently, less pilots on the market, better Ts and C's for all, and those that do make it are more experienced, have been around more experience, have less entitled attitudes, and are liable to make more informed choices. Good all round.

[lansen]

Previous poster said Command after 5 years is an example of being unprepared. I am saying it can be much worse than that.
Any pilot jumping on the left seat of a medium jet with that experience is ignorant about the risk. Since neither the airlines nor the pilots are being able to behave themselves in this regard I see urgent to put measures in place to stop this madness, being those measures total time, number of recurrent checks, years as commercial pilot...

Of course, those pilots taking the Command so soon are doing it for less salary or paying for it. I have rejected the Command several times because the salary offered was even less than FO.

This is a question that should be assessed from pilot to pilot. Say whatever you want. There ARE guys/girls who are mature and skilled enough to make the left seat after five years. Airmanship doesn't necessarily have to go hand in hand with experience. A lot of accidents (SWR111 with two highly experienced TREs onboard, to just name one) will prove your theory wrong.

[flyingmed]

Sometimes it's the very experienced pilots that will get you into bad scenarios! Although the argument that more experience is better than low experience is usually correct, it can just as easily be the other way around!

I've flown with both extremes and learned my lesson, always double check and don't fully trust anyone. Experience is great when there is time to deal with a situation where the bigger outside the box approach is needed, most situations I've ever had to deal with, the minimum experience pilots have been able to handle it with no problem. It really depends on the individual and their own capabilities.

[Luray]

So back to the topic. Technically, a fully autonomous airliner can be built tomorrow. Pilots really are not needed anymore. Getting the paying passenger to accept this is the major hurdle facing airlines.

Hold your horses Captain:) Our modern computers do look sleek and capable of doing wonders but in reality they are nothing but a bunch of Nand gates on steroids not very different from Apollo era machines. If you take the best ever super computer of 2019 and try to emulate natural behavior of a living thing , its gonna go nowhere further than retarded baby mouse intellect. We have reached the end of technological progress in its present form and computers are not getting any smarter, just a bit faster. So don't worry , dark era of cyborg pilots has been postponed for another future +50 years after ww3.

[cessnaxpilot]

Well you make a good point about deviations from controlled flight, however, I think most people would agree that the overall loss of flying skills during an airline career has nothing to do with background and personal 'level', but more with company culture and what they do and do not allow. If you watch a few Justplanes on youtube and you see a crew autolanding an aircraft in LHR in cavok and 0 wind, then I think you could have spent 15.000 hours in a crop duster, you still will lose everything your learn. This is a culture problem, not a training or personal experience level problem.

yes... you do need to stay engaged, but what if you never had the stick and rudder skill to begin with? MCC does a lot to train the airline style flying, but not really a lot of challenging stick and rudder skills to file away as “lesson learned.” It seems we’ve seen pilots watch the VNAV or V/S not give them what they expect, but in the end, why didn’t they feel comfortable to just turn everything off and intervene? Now days we spend so much time teaching the FMS that pilots in a bind tend to continue to program the box and the flying pilot just watches. It’s poor airmanship, and it’s an industry problem on both sides of the Atlantic. But I hear you... It was a lot easier to stay proficient when flying the DC-9 than the Airbus. I enjoy the occasional visual pattern with AP, FD, and AT off, but I don’t think that most people ever do that (or maybe it’s prohibited by their company).

but the idea of turning out a lot of low time candidates, safe or not, will not do anything to help the pilots bargaining position for better contracts. You become easy to replace.

[4runner]

[QUOTE]The biz jet world does give safe harbor to some really appalling aviators, or some very strange people who would not otherwise survive in a more standardised airline world. I emphasise "some"!
/QUOTE]

Having been in the training role in the Biz Jet world for some time I can say that there are also "some" appalling operators coming from the Airline world!
There are major differences between the skills required for Airline and Biz Jet operations and what is good for one is not necessarily good for the other.
For instance: operating into an airfield outside controlled airspace where a 'cloud break' from a military radar followed by a VFR leg to land on a limited length runway is required. Or flying into White Plains (New York) or Opa Locka (Miami) where a radar to visual approach is the norm. Good lookout and Airmanship skills are a must. I have flown with ex-airline pilots who did not have a clue. Some were very good though.


Yeah Opa Locka transition to visual is pure Top Gun....there’s a power like somewhere and a big lake. You should probably paint a big Okochobee sticker on the side of your plane for acknowledgement of your ace skills.

[Jeffory]

A plentiful supply of low hour, self funded, cadet 'style' pilots is the natural future for airlines filling the RHS. Most will be loaded with debt, not guaranteed a job after training and easily replaceable during their early years. You essentially have a captive workforce and can set pay scales at a happy medium that still sees people lining up for a shot. It's great for getting into an airline job with few hours, but it will continue to drag the general terms and conditions of the industry down to very basic wages, especially as hiring slows down. But hey, eventually that better job will present itself yeh?

[Can737]

I just want to share my little perspective about experience prior flying big jets. I did over 2300 hours of single piston and single turbine flying before piloting twin turbines, and eventually moving into big jets. My first job on a big jet was when I had 3500 hours.

I had the chance to instruct, cropdust, do aerial survey, medevac, overall fly multiple airplanes and live all kind of funny and not so funny experiences. When I was flying turboprops (no autopilots installed) we could overshoot sometimes couple times a week, we were sometimes unable to hold altitude because of icing and had to make difficult decisions about alternates. I also lived two unrealiable airspeed, loss of pressurization, bleed dutct issue, one of the unrealiable airspeed was on the twin turboprops right after takeoff at 11 pm, darknight, snowstorm, the whole package.

You can make fun of the banner guy in a c172, but the first time I lost my airspeed, it was right after takeoff in a c172, right out of a grass strip, (an insect in the pitot) I had 400 hours, it was a really hot day, 3 fat tourists inside the airplane, believe it or not, until you live it, seeing that IAS go down slowly but surely, you won't know how you will react, the more experience you get the best it is.

I have been type rated on 3 big jets so far, life is good on those big aircraft, but you don't learn about flying in there, and I don't regret a single second about the experience I gained flying smaller aircraft.

[pineteam]

Well said Can737. Many people have no idea how challenging flying small planes are in some countries. People always mention military as difficult which is certainly the case but bush flying is in some places, actually more challenging.

[cucuotto]

I just want to share my little perspective about experience prior flying big jets. I did over 2300 hours of single piston and single turbine flying before piloting twin turbines, and eventually moving into big jets. My first job on a big jet was when I had 3500 hours.

I had the chance to instruct, cropdust, do aerial survey, medevac, overall fly multiple airplanes and live all kind of funny and not so funny experiences. When I was flying turboprops (no autopilots installed) we could overshoot sometimes couple times a week, we were sometimes unable to hold altitude because of icing and had to make difficult decisions about alternates. I also lived two unrealiable airspeed, loss of pressurization, bleed dutct issue, one of the unrealiable airspeed was on the twin turboprops right after takeoff at 11 pm, darknight, snowstorm, the whole package.

You can make fun of the banner guy in a c172, but the first time I lost my airspeed, it was right after takeoff in a c172, right out of a grass strip, (an insect in the pitot) I had 400 hours, it was a really hot day, 3 fat tourists inside the airplane, believe it or not, until you live it, seeing that IAS go down slowly but surely, you won't know how you will react, the more experience you get the best it is.

I have been type rated on 3 big jets so far, life is good on those big aircraft, but you don't learn about flying in there, and I don't regret a single second about the experience I gained flying smaller aircraft.

Same here. I cannot agree more. Cadet should be only ab nitio screened and funded by established airlines..I regularly fly with P2F dudes that payed their way in the cockpit with minimal time and to the exclusive advantage of dodgy enlarged EU ATOs. They are a disaster, zero knowledge, zero experience zero handling. Try take away the AP and FD and have a laugh!!!

[Sick]

Or a crosswind landing on limits! (I'm not sure if it's laugh or cry).

Although for the FO, max x-wind was a non assessed exercise in the sim, the copilot had 4 attempts, completely lost control, and crashed on each one - He didn't seem to know what the ailerons were for - smash it on with a mistimed rudder input, ailerons neutral, downwind wheel digs in, upwind wing lifts and barreling across the grass we go/or pod strike/sim freeze. That wasn't the worrying thing - but that he and TRE - just shrugs all round (granted, being unassessed, the TRE couldn't do much else), and with an LPC ticking all the boxes with perfect SOPs - everyone goes home with above average grades, and out he goes to do max cross wind landings with 200 people aboard. Lack of handling skills really doesn't seem to be a barrier these days. But "zero knowledge"? Well I disagree partly on that one, as the wizz-kids are generally savvy enough to know that IS one thing that will get them kicked out on their ear.

[cessnaxpilot]

Can737 has hit the nail on the head. I think that many who argue how great low time MCC candidates are must have come through that route. In my first 1000 hours I experienced a broken crankshaft engine failure with a glider on tow, a fire in the cockpit, radio failure, iced over front windows... and so many here just talk about 1000 hours in the pattern.

But the reality is that MCC is here to stay. There will be a steady supply of low time pilots. Pilots jump from job to job to get long haul or wide body or command time, and in the end it does little for the profession as a whole. We will need stronger unified groups with a collective strength of a union. Unfortunately the LCC have mastered how to divide bases and contracts to whipsaw the pilots back and forth.

[Polorutz]

I think you will find lack of airmanship and training did play a part in the Max accidents.
Especially the ET incident.
Well before MCAS was active the pilots distracted by the faulty A/A probe causing the Stick Shaker, left full takeoff power set throughout the flight until ground contact. Not good Airmanship.
No, I don't work for Boeing.

Cessnapete have you flown a 737?

737’s have a very pronounced pitch/power couple due to the underslung engines and conventional flight controls. If you’re low and have no pitch authority reducing thrust is extremely counter intuitive.

Pilots are being trained in a yoyo maneuver that allows trim authority to be recovered but it’s pretty hard to fly.

[PaulH1]

[QUOTE=PaulH1;10649552]


Yeah Opa Locka transition to visual is pure Top Gun....there’s a power like somewhere and a big lake. You should probably paint a big Okochobee sticker on the side of your plane for acknowledgement of your ace skills.

Great idea! Trouble is finding somewhere to stick it as the side of the aircraft is now full!

Scarcasm aside, my post was not intended to sing my own praises - it was to highlight areas where, in my experience, some airline pilots transitioning to Biz Jet operations have had difficulties.

[cucuotto]

Removing the checking power to airlines would would do a lot.. It's a great black mailing tool by the way. Let's send a German TRE do checks at an enlarged Eastern EU low co airline ..
I would go further and say that national CAAs should disappear cause in certain countries it's just a pantomime..

[dirk85]

Removing the checking power to airlines would would do a lot.. It's a great black mailing tool by the way. Let's send a German TRE do checks at an enlarged Eastern EU low co airline ..
I would go further and say that national CAAs should disappear cause in certain countries it's just a pantomime..

I have had extensive experience with the mentioned low cost and let me tell you, their training department puts to shame the vast majority of western european operators, low cost or otherwise.

[bringbackthe80s]

Yes the european pilot market is saturated, what are you going to do about it? Pack and go to the other side of the world? Most likely not, I’ve seen people accept anything to be home. So there you go

[FBW390]

Why is everyone using the banner towing and flying around the circuit as the example of basic experience. It plainly isn’t. Most of us cut our teeth single pilot IFR flying night freight in PA-31s with no radar and dodgy autopilots. No one is a hero.. all of us did this, it was just a job which paid our bills. And before that, we were bush flying in DHC2, C206 and C210s. No magenta line anywhere. Who even knew magenta was a colour in those days?

So back to the topic. Technically, a fully autonomous airliner can be built tomorrow. Pilots really are not needed anymore. Getting the paying passenger to accept this is the major hurdle facing airlines.

The path to every airline managers wet dream is being paved by new technologies, automation and a very enhanced ATC system. You have to try really, really hard to crash these days. What this boils down to is that an experienced pilot will no longer be required. CPDLC is the thus edge of the wedge. not long before it’s next generation drives your autopilot directly. All that’s needed is just one guy up front who can read a manual and in extremis bang it down on a runway somewhere in case all that automation fails. 100 hours total time, all of which obtained in the sim will suffice. T&Cs will continue to spiral down the toilet bowl. A brave new world indeed.
Fully autonomous airliners tmrw? Pilots really not needed? Call Boeing and Airbus and tell them! The airlines will love that! Seriously, they even can't fix it with a car!
And it's really hard to crash these days? No! Unfortunately...The last one was only 5 days ago, on Dec 27th in Almaty...And you've heard of Lion Air and Ethiopian B737 Max?

FBW390

[cucuotto]

I have had extensive experience with the mentioned low cost and let me tell you, their training department puts to shame the vast majority of western european operators, low cost or otherwise.
I did not mention any specific airline didn't I?

​​​

[cucuotto]

Yes the european pilot market is saturated, what are you going to do about it? Pack and go to the other side of the world? Most likely not, I’ve seen people accept anything to be home. So there you go
The EU pilot market is saturated by idiots. Pilots are becoming a rarity I mean real ones.
Full of immature bimbominkias with daddy's money playing pilot taking selfies in uniform accepting as low as 300 euro a month. But the blame goes to EASA that tolerate this practice and put an approval stamp on ATO's that are just money making substandard " pilot" mills.

​​​​​​






​​
​​​​​

[4runner]

Cessnapete have you flown a 737?

737’s have a very pronounced pitch/power couple due to the underslung engines and conventional flight controls. If you’re low and have no pitch authority reducing thrust is extremely counter intuitive.

Pilots are being trained in a yoyo maneuver that allows trim authority to be recovered but it’s pretty hard to fly.



yes....there’s some bandaid augmentation system, but it’s still a handful. Especially during a go around. I’m not the ace of the base, but a 737 does have some serious pitch up tendencies when you rapidly apply thrust while hand flying.

[Luray]

The EU pilot market is saturated by idiots. Pilots are becoming a rarity I mean real ones.
Full of immature bimbominkias with daddy's money playing pilot taking selfies in uniform accepting as low as 300 euro a month. But the blame goes to EASA that tolerate this practice and put an approval stamp on ATO's that are just money making substandard " pilot" mills.

​
Cucuotto,

There is a bit of truth in what you are saying. To be honest i created this topic after reading some of your comments in another thread. Lets not be so pessimistic and hope this EU venture will end some day after they realize that pilots are the final link in safety and keeping us happy is the only way to make airlines profitable and our passengers in one piece. I did a simple math and came up with a perfect solution - it only takes 5 euro on top of a ticket price to make our life much better.

[cucuotto]

Cucuotto,

There is a bit of truth in what you are saying. To be honest i created this topic after reading some of your comments in another thread. Lets not be so pessimistic and hope this EU venture will end some day after they realize that pilots are the final link in safety and keeping us happy is the only way to make airlines profitable and our passengers in one piece. I did a simple math and came up with a perfect solution - it only takes 5 euro on top of a ticket price to make our life much better.
Glad I'm m been of inspiration. You can read in this forum.the SmartLinx thread were the afore mentioned idiots are rushing ..to pay 35K euro for a perspective initial salary of 100 euro .One is even available to work for free. What kind of quality and safety levels you may expect.?Blue Air Avion Express Smart linx and the like should be banned by EU skies . ..I personally stay very well clear.
​​

​

[cucuotto]

Not that you could type their email address correctly. What's your beef, been fired?
Mhhh...WTF are you talking about habibi?

[jbcarioca]

I have never been an airline pilot but I have been a CFI and taught many pilots to pass ATP, with checkrides in both Lear 23D and CE500. The ones who were competent in stick and rudder I did in teh lear of they wanted it. The others ahd to fly the Cessna because i wanted to stay alive myself. I have trained many dozens of pilots from all over the world.

In my very humble view the first and foremost problem is abnormal/emergency procedures training. The second, just as critical is crm. Almost all the accident reports I ever have reviewed have had a combination of both problems.

More simulator training, not less and more recurrency simulator training, not less, can vastly reduce the risks, regardless of hours.

Boeing has gone through hoops to reduce training requirements. Airlines do that too. No secret, simulator training is expensive and emergencies are rare.

I am strongly in favor of more competent automation and more extensive automation. I also don't care a whit how many hours a pilot has. I care if they know what to do when something goes wrong.

[Lund student SDW]

Autonomous airliners? Check out the NTSB report on the fatal accident of the autonomous car that drove into a pedestrian and her bike (the list of "objects" and situations those cars can't handle is longer than you think). The lack of training on ethics and human factors is the running joke of the software industry for years (fortunately some take those courses at some point in their careers). Full autonomy means the designers have foreseen and built in every possible scenario into the algorithms. 'Not going to happen any time soon, IMHO. Or perhaps when accident reports will stop to describe operational surprises and unexpected combinations nobody ever thought of (good luck with that one)... Put AI on board then? Who's got the guts to certify such an airplane when the software engineers themselves acknowledge that at a certain point they don't know exactly how things work anymore?

If you can, grab a copy of "The ironies of automation" by Lisanne Bainbridge. It's a 4-page article from 1983 and we haven't made much progress since then.
"Pay-to-fly" schemes will unfortunately carry on for many years...

[cucuotto]

To kmow what to do when something goes wrong..is called experience.

[Lund student SDW]

To kmow what to do when something goes wrong..is called experience.

Right. Unfortunately, it's only when you set the parking brake that you know for sure that what you did was a reasonably correct thing to do. And when hindsight bias kicks in.

To your point, I'm concerned about professionals not being exposed to enough risky situations, and even freaking out at the mere thought of manually flying all the way to TOC or from TOD (...when the conditions are right of course). Ultra-safe may become "too safe" (can't believe I'm saying this!), and this is one of the ironies when the average skills erode by a lack of exposure to crappy situations and bad decisions (that hopefully are both recoverable).

[wiggy]

If you can, grab a copy of "The ironies of automation" by Lisanne Bainbridge. It's a 4-page article from 1983 and we haven't made much progress since then.
..

Thanks for that..I can't find an on-line source to the original paper as an open source document but I did find this:

http://johnrooksby.org/papers/ECCE2012_baxter_ironies.pdf

[bringbackthe80s]

Right. Unfortunately, it's only when you set the parking brake that you know for sure that what you did was a reasonably correct thing to do. And when hindsight bias kicks in.

To your point, I'm concerned about professionals not being exposed to enough risky situations, and even freaking out at the mere thought of manually flying all the way to TOC or from TOD (...when the conditions are right of course). Ultra-safe may become "too safe" (can't believe I'm saying this!), and this is one of the ironies when the average skills erode by a lack of exposure to crappy situations and bad decisions (that hopefully are both recoverable).

There is no benefit whatsoever in flying manually to TOC or from TOD.
Learning to fly means first of all being selected at a very early stage by a reputable organization (usually military, but also a big airline). And also being exposed to many different ways of flying, ideally military, and also gliders, single, multi engines. In different parts of the world possibly, in different weather conditions. Once you’re at an airline it’s too late, and most likely you’ll have to listen to young instructors who have less experience than the average first officer a couple of decades ago.
It is what it is.

[pineteam]

There is no benefit whatsoever in flying manually to TOC or from TOD.


I don’t totally agree. Well if you keep the FD all the time and Auto Thrust I agree you don’t learn much.
But even if you had done challenging flying before , if you don’t practise you loose your skills. Simple as that.
Flying accurately a raw data ILS is not possible if you don’t train it regularly in line. I see so many guys doing raw data In daily operations and it confirms exactly what I say. The ones who do it often are usually the best. The only way to master instruments flying by hand and to feel confortable doing it in any conditions is to practise, practise and practise. Of course some are naturally better in term of handling. The ex military guys have usually a good handling but they are no exception to that rule. In fact they are not the best I have seen so saying ideally military is a bit pushy IMHO . From what I have seen so far, usually the guys who flew ATR in rough conditions are at ease when it comes to fly A320 raw data. I never flew ATR btw. I wish I did tho.

[porkflyer]

I did a sim on 777 in Turkey to an Italian and he was better than the AP . I was impressed by his raw data ILS..to a landing at Mina and with 25 kts of xwind.
That is the goal..bring better than few electrons with your billion neurons not letting this profession die on automation complacency. Just a matter of time before something will happen and bring up the issue. Too many virtual/fake pilots in the cockpit.

[SID PLATE]

I don’t totally agree. Well if you keep the FD all the time and Auto Thrust I agree you don’t learn much.
But even if you had done challenging flying before , if you don’t practise you loose your skills. Simple as that.
Flying accurately a raw data ILS is not possible if you don’t train it regularly in line. I see so many guys doing raw data In daily operations and it confirms exactly what I say. The ones who do it often are usually the best. The only way to master instruments flying by hand and to feel confortable doing it in any conditions is to practise, practise and practise. Of course some are naturally better in term of handling. The ex military guys have usually a good handling but they are no exception to that rule. In fact they are not the best I have seen so saying ideally military is a bit pushy IMHO . From what I have seen so far, usually the guys who flew ATR in rough conditions are at ease when it comes to fly A320 raw data. I never flew ATR btw. I wish I did tho.



Some airline's SOPs (RYR), prohibit raw data line flying if the Flight Director is serviceable. Screwed up approaches and subsequent go arounds cost money.
They manage the threat of skills degradation by encouraging their pilots to book ad hoc sim time for practice in a dedicated fixed base machine.
There is no truth in the rumour that the sim has a coin slot on the outside, which accepts euros, in order to make it work.

[Racetothebottom]

Why is this FD topic / manual flying thing everywhere in the T&C’s?Pilot saturation, Wizz Air,....

[sheikmyarse]

Why is this FD topic / manual flying thing everywhere in the T&C’s?Pilot saturation, Wizz Air,....

If you let people genetically unable to fly.. fly cause someone profits from making them think they can fly... you got a saturation. Like being unable to play tennis but your teacher tells you ..nooo you are good you will mprove ...just to sell lessons balls and raquets. You want good player in the cockpit...not delusional idiots.

[pineteam]

Agree with you Sheikmyarse.
Let’s face it. Most of the fatal accidents in the last 15 years, the lack of hand flying skills was definitely a big factor.
But amazingly some airlines still forbid their pilots to hand fly in line and that’s totally legal. Unbelievable. Smh

[FlightDetent]

Most of the fatal accidents in the last 15 years, the lack of hand flying skills was definitely a big factor. Right on the target, but a wrong one. How many of those were caused by P2F cadets? I do not dispute the rusty skills analysis.

The reason every thread gets polluted with this resentment headache is people looking for scapegoats, and then legions rush to join sing along.

Inconvenient truths:
- on a path 0-2500 hrs medium jet, the self-sponsored (P2F) line-training packages cost just over a half of typical high-class CTC / CAE Oxford integrated courses. Pay and expenses included.
- money is necessary to get you a seat, but will not pass the exams for you. Could the ATO turn a blind eye, or avoid a specific exercise for the check? Possibly so, but after passing that you ain't seen even a shadow of a crew-shuttle bus (more below)
- the rich kids, as a group, do better. Any walk of life, and that also for objective reasons. Agonizing over it did not improve anyone's self ever.

----

Somebody upthread commented on having multiple horrendous experiences with fresh F/Os. While my personal account is nowhere near that heartbreaking at all, I need to respect that fellow pilot's opinion.

There was a simple 3-stage exercise to pass before concluding the training phase, to be admitted for the final SIM check on my first type rating. Organized and neat performance was the requirement.
a) ILS raw data (no AP / no FD / no ATHR / no MAP mode) down through CAT II minima
b) EFATO at V1 (handflown to landing)
c) PIC incap at VR.
only then you're ready for the check. And we had been trained hard for it.

If someone finds himself next to a colleague who is not sufficiently competent (unable to land back in marginal WX single-pilot, e.g.) the system must had failed them both:

Ground Zero: not reported for performance review by line captains
level Z-1: passed line-check
level Z-2: passed release from the "with safety pilot" phase
level Z-3: passed the OCC SIM check
level Z-4: passed the type rating Licence Proficiency Check.

There are deeper levels, but irrelevant. One can only clean the near side of the street. Funny and unsettling at the same time, those 5 above have something in common, organizationally. That is the elephant in the room nobody dares to mention. While at the same time the FAA to Boeing delegation fiasco still gets at least 5 fresh comments a day here.

---

I see these loose thoughts are irrelevant to the topic of the thread, apologies for joining the band.

[sheikmyarse]

Right on the target, but a wrong one. How many of those were caused by P2F cadets? I do not dispute the rusty skills analysis.

The reason every thread gets polluted with this resentment headache is people looking for scapegoats, and then legions rush to join sing along.

Inconvenient truths:
- on a path 0-2500 hrs medium jet, the self-sponsored (P2F) line-training packages cost just over a half of typical high-class CTC / CAE Oxford integrated courses. Pay and expenses included.
- money is necessary to get you a seat, but will not pass the exams for you. Could the ATO turn a blind eye, or avoid a specific exercise for the check? Possibly so, but after passing that you ain't seen even a shadow of a crew-shuttle bus (more below)
- the rich kids, as a group, do better. Any walk of life, and that also for objective reasons. Agonizing over it did not improve anyone's self ever.

----

Somebody upthread commented on having multiple horrendous experiences with fresh F/Os. While my personal account is nowhere near that heartbreaking at all, I need to respect that fellow pilot's opinion.

There was a simple 3-stage exercise to pass before concluding the training phase, to be admitted for the final SIM check on my first type rating. Organized and neat performance was the requirement.
a) ILS raw data (no AP / no FD / no ATHR / no MAP mode) down through CAT II minima
b) EFATO at V1 (handflown to landing)
c) PIC incap at VR.
only then you're ready for the check. And we had been trained hard for it.

If someone finds himself next to a colleague who is not sufficiently competent (unable to land back in marginal WX single-pilot, e.g.) the system must had failed them both:

Ground Zero: not reported for performance review by line captains
level Z-1: passed line-check
level Z-2: passed release from the "with safety pilot" phase
level Z-3: passed the OCC SIM check
level Z-4: passed the type rating Licence Proficiency Check.

There are deeper levels, but irrelevant. One can only clean the near side of the street. Funny and unsettling at the same time, those 5 above have something in common, organizationally. That is the elephant in the room nobody dares to mention. While at the same time the FAA to Boeing delegation fiasco still gets at least 5 fresh comments a day here.

---

I see these loose thoughts are irrelevant to the topic of the thread, apologies for joining the band.
The rich kids as group do better? I don't think so..they can pay their way into a corrupt system. And that is what it is. A friend of mine told me of a certain Easter EU carrier ..that allows people that should not be let even close to an aircraft to fly. He told me of the lack of skill and coordination and extreme lack of knowledge of basic ATPL concepts and even more of aircraft systems by many P2F imbeciles paying their seat to became poorly paid passengers filling paperwork unable to land the plane..imagine to manage a captain incapacitation in marginal weather..... So sorry to disagree..but something is very wrong and sooner or later it will surface ...from smoke and flames unfortunately.

[FlightDetent]

The rich kids do better is a concept beyond aviation. Sociological finding, that as a group people with golden spoons achieve "measurable" (ehm) higher goals in life than people born with no spoons at all. Success breed success, it's the upbringing and resources their families can provide, role models and responsibility patterns they learn early in life.

I respect you may not think so, and acknowledge your friend tells you stories of somewhere. I've seen otherwise living and working over there. Upon closer inspection, the P2F is a strawman. It exists but has nowhere near the attributes the scaremongers shout of.

The best 4 out of 15 industry freshmen (no matter the road to flight-deck) would have 3 well-off-ish and 1 natural talent. In a strange fate of twist now and then you realize that from the rich families (hotels, construction companies, people who own their private aeroplanes) it is the dumb apple sent to be a pilot. And still floats comfortably above average in his class.

Most of the P2F are highly respectable self-achievers who had the lucidity to weigh their options realistically and then did something about it. Not that many rich kids there actually, those would get a loan with collateral from their parents and a) do CAE Oxford b) /more likely/ chose a different vocation. Because rich does not equal stupid. Quite on the contrary, if you look with the statistical glasses on.

[sheikmyarse]

None of the few good pilot I have flown with come from rich families. Most of the incredible number of those who should do something else in life do.
Your theory is nonsense and you just seem to defend a system you have personal interest with idiotic theories on the superiority of the rich Are you the Donald Trump of aviation.?

[FlightDetent]

Your theory is nonsense and you just seem to defend a system you have personal interest with idiotic theories on the superiority of the rich Are you the Donald Trump of aviation.? Come again?

[Mansnothot]

Come again?

He said your theory is nonsense, which it is. You talk a lot but you haven’t said anything.

[BluSdUp]

But the standard has falling DRAMATICALLY.

When did a fellow Captain last tell you:
" Dude, these young fellas are super duper good, one better then the other.!!"
Never ever heard that!
On the other hand I often get the feedback from other Captains that they are tired of incompetent and arrogant FOs.
I sure am!

It did not used to be this way 15 to 20 years ago.

Is this proof?
No, it is subjective, but we are end users of the New Aviation Training Industry, and we are qualified to judge.
It has simply failed!

Helmet On
Taking cover.
Cpt B

[Climb150]

Parts of the statement are true. People from better off backgrounds to tend have higher standards of living compared to people from lower socio economic backgrounds. Access to education and finance etc. That is a fact.

As for P2F I have seen a mixed bag. Some were good, most sat around average and a few terrible ones. I know of people rejected by P2F airlines for being really bad pilots. Nearly all the P2F people I met did it simply because their home countries airline required political or family connections to get hired.

Most pay to flyers were not rich kids by any means. I know a few rich kids. They would never be pilots.

[sheikmyarse]

But the standard has falling DRAMATICALLY.

When did a fellow Captain last tell you:
" Dude, these young fellas are super duper good, one better then the other.!!"
Never ever heard that!
On the other hand I often get the feedback from other Captains that they are tired of incompetent and arrogant FOs.
I sure am!

It did not used to be this way 15 to 20 years ago.

Is this proof?
No, it is subjective, but we are end users of the New Aviation Training Industry, and we are qualified to judge.
It has simply failed!

Helmet On
Taking cover.
Cpt B
Very very spot on!!!!
Now..what can we do about it?

[averdung]

yes....there’s some bandaid augmentation system, but it’s still a handful. Especially during a go around. I’m not the ace of the base, but a 737 does have some serious pitch up tendencies when you rapidly apply thrust while hand flying.


The CFM56s are angled upwards to help get Baby Huey off the ground http://www.b737.org.uk/powerplant.htm
That will get you a good pitch change with power, apart from the fact that the 737 redefined "short-coupled" since the -100. The poor thing has been mutated from a decent cut-down 707 with 727 engines to a kludge thrown together by "clowns supervised by monkeys", as a Boeing pilot put it. Ask anyone who flew 732s which one handles like a real airplane, and which one like a drunk hog. Same thing happened with the MD-11, and it's well known that Boeing's engineering went straight to hell after the merger with MDD.

[TheBat]

But the standard has falling DRAMATICALLY.

When did a fellow Captain last tell you:
" Dude, these young fellas are super duper good, one better then the other.!!"
Never ever heard that!
On the other hand I often get the feedback from other Captains that they are tired of incompetent and arrogant FOs.
I sure am!

It did not used to be this way 15 to 20 years ago.

Is this proof?
No, it is subjective, but we are end users of the New Aviation Training Industry, and we are qualified to judge.
It has simply failed!

Helmet On
Taking cover.
Cpt B

Then your HR department (and whoever is involved) should re-think their whole selection process!

[neilki]

While I agree that experience is not the only metric

Every "good" pilot gets better with experience
Every "Bad" pilot gets a little less bad with experience


On top of that It is always better to scare yourself ****less on your own in a little Cessna and swear to never do that again than to do the same as a captain in a 737.

There are capts in Europe that have never diverted, never done a GA, never have had to use the QRH in flight. They are flying with guys that are trailing twelve miles behind the tail. The only reason nothing happens is because these are extremely reliable machines
while I certainly agree experience generally makes a better pilot ‘better’ I don’t agree with the opposite.
A bad pilot may be statistically more likely to fail with more opportunity to screw up!

[Aso]

But the standard has falling DRAMATICALLY.

Well there is two answers:

No quality has not fallen dramatically
There is a shortage of pilots trained at that means airlines are now hiring people that were 5 years ago were not even considered

So as a summary: there is a shortage of well qualified candidates and the well qualified candidates are picked up almost immediately...

[flyingmed]

Well there is two answers:

No quality has not fallen dramatically
There is a shortage of pilots trained at that means airlines are now hiring people that were 5 years ago were not even considered

So as a summary: there is a shortage of well qualified candidates and the well qualified candidates are picked up almost immediately...

Depends who you work for and which candidates are applying! I agree that the quality of the top candidates is still the same however there are a lot more candidates who should not be allowed anywhere near a plane. Once the top candidates are taken there are plenty of airlines mainly towards eastern Europe, Asia etc who seem to hire these people who really don't have any idea about flying or the motor skills to safely fly an aircraft.

There is definitely a problem with communication in my opinion. I was line training a new first officer recently who seemed to be completely lost. The problems continued with other training captains over several flights with no improvements so some inquiries were made. It turns out that this person had problems all the way through flight school and all the way through the type rating but somehow managed to pass the important tests even though there was an underlying problem. This person should have been stopped at a much earlier stage and not allowed through the system. Its easy to talk about Swiss cheese models for aviation accidents but what about maybe the flight schools using the same model to catch students who are not up to the task.

It is quite scary to think that the same person was asked to leave and has recently gone and joined another airline in the central / eastern part of Europe :ugh:

[Yury Gagarin]

Depends who you work for and which candidates are applying! I agree that the quality of the top candidates is still the same however there are a lot more candidates who should not be allowed anywhere near a plane. Once the top candidates are taken there are plenty of airlines mainly towards eastern Europe, Asia etc who seem to hire these people who really don't have any idea about flying or the motor skills to safely fly an aircraft.

There is definitely a problem with communication in my opinion. I was line training a new first officer recently who seemed to be completely lost. The problems continued with other training captains over several flights with no improvements so some inquiries were made. It turns out that this person had problems all the way through flight school and all the way through the type rating but somehow managed to pass the important tests even though there was an underlying problem. This person should have been stopped at a much earlier stage and not allowed through the system. Its easy to talk about Swiss cheese models for aviation accidents but what about maybe the flight schools using the same model to catch students who are not up to the task.

It is quite scary to think that the same person was asked to leave and has recently gone and joined another airline in the central / eastern part of Europe :ugh:
I quote you 100% I have seen plenty of people that should not be flying. They are a liability and the product of the " training business" that as long as they pay...let everybody go through. Very scary.

[bringbackthe80s]

Guys, what is there to say. People are queing left and right to join airlines which about 15/20 years ago would have been avoided like the plague by any half decent pilot.
The conditions are shocking. And people make careers there, with whatever justification.
And all I see are Instagram pictures of kids smiling in the flight deck. This is what it’s come to, in Europe especially. It is what it is.

[Douglas Bahada]

I have found that the "standard" has slipped over the last 20 or so years. Newer system operators have a good but academic grasp of SOP. However they are poor below 200 ft. Ground shy. Overcontrolling. No feel.

Thus the system operator jibe. I would say the vast majority are not stick and rudder pilots as they have never had to be.

[Aso]

I quote you 100% I have seen plenty of people that should not be flying. They are a liability and the product of the " training business" that as long as they pay...let everybody go through. Very scary.

And I agree with THAT statement :) In the past those people were never allowed to fly and they are generally the ones complaining on Pprune and blame the market, the operators etc since they have a LICENCE and hence deserve a job. What they miss is the standard required. Now in the current market some of them have been able to go to the Enter air and the likes and bought a job... (most fun one: guy was not hired by us as he was cr@p but ended up with a Polish ACMI operator we used for summer lift flying our customers after all :eek::uhoh:)

So I might not be making friends: at the moment there is a shortage of well qualified candidates... And if you are not hired in the current market go and get some honest feedback of why you are not hired and do not blame the market.... :hmm:

[Olympia463]

My wife and I have given up flying, not because we think we could get killed by dodgy pilots (see above), but because we cannot stand the hassle on the ground in the airport. However as a pilot with 1000+ hrs of gliding - 2200 sorties, Silver C,and an instructor rating, I think I can see the drift of the this thread. There are people flying big aeroplanes full of people who should not be doing this. Every one of my 1000 hrs was 'hands on stick', and as I was soon teaching flying to the great British public, who could just turn up at the club, join, and expect to be taught to fly, I had some 'interesting' pupils to say the least. However, in my undergraduate days I had applied to join Glasgow University Air Squadron - I didn't get in - too many applicants that year, but I did have the full RAF medical, aptitude (in a Link trainer), and attitude tests, which took all day in the nearest military hospital. Why do the airlines not do this? The captain of my school (captain of rugger/cricket/golf etc) was in the same group as me, and he failed the eyesight test - slightly green/red colour blind! I was determined to learn to fly, and still hoped to do that in the RAF during my National Service (giving my age away here), but on graduation as a mechanical engineer I was hired by Rolls-Royce and trained as a jet engine designer (Conway and RB108) and thus became permanently exempt. I took up gliding and I have never felt any inclination to fly powered aircraft.

[Chris the Robot]

When it comes to the airlines, there shouldn't be an "industry" taking huge sums from trainees (or their parents) and putting them in the right-hand seat of an airliner after a couple of hundred hours of training. In my opinion, it should either be like the CTC of old with it's 3% acceptance rate, very high placement rate and available funding, or CAP 509-style with full airline funding. I think the demise of CAP 509 and the arrival of a 200 hour "aerial work" CPL replacing the old 700 hour one has dented T&Cs massively by flooding the supply side of the market, strengthening the demand side's hand massively.

As I've said on here many a time, I work on the railway. A few train train operating companies here in the UK have agreed to pay their off-the-street trainees the same (or nearly the same) salary as fully qualified drivers part-way through training. Why? There's a shortage of perennial shortage of drivers driven by the fact that all training must be done in-house, it gives the union a bit more bargaining power. A similar thing happened with newly qualified drivers at another place, shortage of instructors meaning training took longer, the union said, "well, you should be giving them back-pay once they qualify" and the company indeed did that. People were getting £30k payslips the month they got their key.

That's what you pilots could do if the supply/demand situation was in your favour. A lot of people have mentioned supply/demand situation in the US airline market context but wherever it favours the supply (employee) side, you're onto a winner!

[LanceHudson]

Olympia463

You make some excellent points re the Air Force. I left UGSAS two years ago now, (we are now Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde Air Squadron) and everyone is required to sit the full 8-hour suite of aptitude tests at Cranwell in their first year - although it is not a requirement to pass to join the Sqn.
L3 airline academy? 45 minutes on a computer!

I accrued around 30 hours in the Grob with what I would describe as second to none quality instructors. Each with many years of Nimrod/Lightning/Tornado/Chinook flying under their belts. Day one taught to fly base on “feel” of the aircraft, set the throttle based on the engine noise, being able to tell if you are gaining altitude just by the horizon, etc .No looking at the instrument panel(other than for confirmation, of course!). You are flying an aircraft and using your natural senses to gauge control inputs. I am of course very grateful to start my flying career from the very best and I hope I do not forget all that they taught me!

I am now ending University and a looking for a career in Civilian flying and while I have total trust in the academies (L3 , CAE, FTE) I do think it’s unlikely the instruction will quite match my UGSAS days... but who knows?

[wiggy]

I had applied to join Glasgow University Air Squadron - I didn't get in - too many applicants that year, but I did have the full RAF medical, aptitude (in a Link trainer), and attitude tests, which took all day in the nearest military hospital. Why do the airlines not do this?
.

But some airlines do still do this.

The airline I am most familiar with puts prospective recruits, even those already holding medicals, commercial licences and perhaps with thousands of mil/civvy hours through a selection processes that amongst many other things will involve a short assessment session in a simulator.

Further to that and also to answer LanceHudson's comment that:

.I left UGSAS two years ago now, (we are now Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde Air Squadron) and everyone is required to sit the full 8-hour suite of aptitude tests at Cranwell in their first year - although it is not a requirement to pass to join the Sqn.
L3 airline academy? 45 minutes on a computer!

Folks..at the risk of being controversial I'd make one observation...if say, the RAF or an airline is paying for some/all of an ab-initio's training right from day one then they are going to insist on some form of fairly rigorous screening prior to that training commencing because they are carrying all the financial risk if the student gets the "chop" (can we still use that term?) during the course.

If, OTOH, the student (or his/her parents) are carrying all the financial risk then the training organisation(s) might perhaps have a slightly different approach to aptitude tests.

[SaulGoodman]

I am going to be blunt but it seems that the traditionally decent employers do not have these issues (the odd one might slip through the net ofcourse) as they have decent packages and can pick and choose.
So maybe you should ask yourself: why do I work for such a crappy employer?*

But it seems like any thread on prune: “everything was better in the old days.” “The new generation is this and that...” Etc etc. But every generation has said that before you. We tend to romanticize when we think back.
We tend to forget that in the old days there were ****ty airlines with dubious practices as well..


for why t&c’s here are lacking behind the US:
airlines work in a single market but unions can not. Airlines are free to open AOC’s wherever they see fit and hire on different contracts while the unions can only look after the pilots in one country. We should have some sort of pan-european labour protection.

[Denti]

for why t&c’s here are lacking behind the US:
airlines work in a single market but unions can not. Airlines are free to open AOC’s wherever they see fit and hire on different contracts while the unions can only look after the pilots in one country. We should have some sort of pan-european labour protection.

Indeed that is, in my view, the main problem. There is free movement for businesses, capital and, yes, labor, but not for unions. I tried to work with ECA for a while trying to push this forward with the EU, and it went nowhere. I know ECA is still somewhat on that case, but hugely sidetracked by the specific issues of ryanair and to some degree norwegian (not so much easyjet for some reason).

Now, labor laws are in general still a thing for each country and they do differ wildly, therefore of course union law does as well, as does the right for industrial action and so on. Unifying that means deciding on a common lowest denominator, and we currently see the discussion heating up in that area with the discussion about an EU wide minimum wage, which in my view is quite dangerous if it is not a percentage of the average or living wage but rather a fixed amount of money. Economies are still very different indeed within the EU, as re labor markets.

And that allows employers to exploit that, which some do, some not so much.

[SaulGoodman]

EU wide minimum wage would be a very bad idea indeed. You don’t even see that in the US. There should be legislation in place that if a union is acknowledged in one country it should automatically be acknowledged in all other member states. The ECA is, however a good initiative, still a toothless animal unfortunately...

[Olympia463]

You make some excellent points re the Air Force. I left UGSAS two years ago now, (we are now Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde Air Squadron) and everyone is required to sit the full 8-hour suite of aptitude tests at Cranwell in their first year - although it is not a requirement to pass to join the Sqn.
L3 airline academy? 45 minutes on a computer!

I accrued around 30 hours in the Grob with what I would describe as second to none quality instructors. Each with many years of Nimrod/Lightning/Tornado/Chinook flying under their belts. Day one taught to fly base on “feel” of the aircraft, set the throttle based on the engine noise, being able to tell if you are gaining altitude just by the horizon, etc .No looking at the instrument panel(other than for confirmation, of course!). You are flying an aircraft and using your natural senses to gauge control inputs. I am of course very grateful to start my flying career from the very best and I hope I do not forget all that they taught me!

I am now ending University and a looking for a career in Civilian flying and while I have total trust in the academies (L3 , CAE, FTE) I do think it’s unlikely the instruction will quite match my UGSAS days... but who knows?

I wish you well in your airline career. You certainly do not fit in to to the stereotype mentioned in so many posts.

The most important point you make relates to 'handling skills' which has to be a vital property of a pilot. When I was teaching gliding we used to blank off the instruments in the front seat on the flights just before we were thinking of sending someone solo. You only get one shot at landing a glider - there is no 'go around' available. Also flying at a club with many other gliders around, does wonders for your SA. And finally when you get to flying cross country, the skill of selecting a landing spot when you run out of lift has to be acquired. I believe that glider pilots who go on to power flying and airline flying have had a valuable introduction to real flying. Several people I sent solo flew in the RAF and a few with airlines.

[Yury Gagarin]

I wish you well in your airline career. You certainly do not fit in to to the stereotype mentioned in so many posts.

The most important point you make relates to 'handling skills' which has to be a vital property of a pilot. When I was teaching gliding we used to blank off the instruments in the front seat on the flights just before we were thinking of sending someone solo. You only get one shot at landing a glider - there is no 'go around' available. Also flying at a club with many other gliders around, does wonders for your SA. And finally when you get to flying cross country, the skill of selecting a landing spot when you run out of lift has to be acquired. I believe that glider pilots who go on to power flying and airline flying have had a valuable introduction to real flying. Several people I sent solo flew in the RAF and a few with airlines.
There are P2F FO that cannot land a 737 with 2000 hours in calm winds cavok...just to give an idea of what is happening. Flying single pilot is almost the norm in certain outfit..problem is the captain also have 2500 hours TT.... and came from the same path. Definitely avoiding all ACMI charter and bottom feeder ..most of them from Eastern Europe
​​​​​​

[bafanguy]

There are P2F FO that cannot land a 737 with 2000 hours in calm winds cavok...just to give an idea of what is happening. ​​​​​​

Are these people given a routine, customary chance to fly the airplane ? And they don't show any improvement ?

[hans brinker]

EU wide minimum wage would be a very bad idea indeed. You don’t even see that in the US. There should be legislation in place that if a union is acknowledged in one country it should automatically be acknowledged in all other member states. The ECA is, however a good initiative, still a toothless animal unfortunately...

It might not be enough, but it does exist.
https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wages/minimumwage

[wiggy]

I wish you well in your airline career. You certainly do not fit in to to the stereotype mentioned in so many posts.
.

Just to digress and to interject a bit of (I think needed) balance into the thread, because I'm getting a bit uncomfortable with some of the stereotyping of "newbies" I am reading.

By way of background I'm a current Longhaul P1. My route to that seat was via a little gliding, then flying training in the RAF, fast jet tours, then CFS - student QFI/Basic FTS QFI and then later at CFS itself instructing instructors. After that and whilst in my mid-thirties I took the DEP route into an airline that selected and continues to select by way of a multi day selection procedure.

Nowadays in my day job I am increasingly working (both on the aircraft and in the simulator under test) alongside sub-thirty year old DEPs who prior to their previous airline were probably trained by the likes of CTC rather than the military... I have also sat on the jump seat recently (short haul) behind a very young cadet very new to the airline, early training done by CTC/L3.....

My perspective on this, FWIW, is that there are actually a lot of very good, very competent young pilots out there flying the line.

I accept I may be lucky in that the airline I work for weeds out the ham fisted slow thinking candidates during it's selection process... perhaps it would be helpful to find out where the outliers, the "2000 hours, can't land a 737/A320 pilots" are working and avoid those airlines...

Now, deep breath, back to the topic...

[TACHO]

I accrued around 30 hours in the Grob with what I would describe as second to none.... I am of course very grateful to start my flying career from the very best.

I am now ending University and a looking for a career in Civilian flying. I do think it’s unlikely the instruction will quite match my UGSAS days... but who knows?

Make sure you mention this at your selection interview, as I'm sure with this attitude, your vast experience and your grand total of 30 hours they'll be able to learn an awful lot from you...

[back to Boeing]

Just to digress and to interject a bit of (I think needed) balance into the thread, because I'm getting a bit uncomfortable with some of the stereotyping of "newbies" I am reading.

By way of background I'm a current Longhaul P1. My route to that seat was via a little gliding, then flying training in the RAF, fast jet tours, then CFS - student QFI/Basic FTS QFI and then later at CFS itself instructing instructors. After that and whilst in my mid-thirties I took the DEP route into an airline that selected and continues to select by way of a multi day selection procedure.

Nowadays in my day job I am increasingly working (both on the aircraft and in the simulator under test) alongside sub-thirty year old DEPs who prior to their previous airline were probably trained by the likes of CTC rather than the military... I have also sat on the jump seat recently (short haul) behind a very young cadet very new to the airline, early training done by CTC/L3.....

My perspective on this, FWIW, is that there are actually a lot of very good, very competent young pilots out there flying the line.

I accept I may be lucky in that the airline I work for weeds out the ham fisted slow thinking candidates during it's selection process... perhaps it would be helpful to find out where the outliers, the "2000 hours, can't land a 737/A320 pilots" are working and avoid those airlines...

Now, deep breath, back to the topic...

no wiggy. You work for an airline that empowers its first officers as captains in waiting. The airlines where to 2000 hour FO’s that can’t land in calm cavok, well we can imagine how their skippers threat their FO’s.

[wiggy]

no wiggy. You work for an airline that empowers its first officers as captains in waiting. The airlines where to 2000 hour FO’s that can’t land in calm cavok, well we can imagine how their skippers threat their FO’s.

Fair point :ok: .

[LanceHudson]

Make sure you mention this at your selection interview, as I'm sure with this attitude, your vast experience and your grand total of 30 hours they'll be able to learn an awful lot from you...

​​​​​​​I'm not sure this an entirely fair response. As I said, I fully trust the academies. If they were no good you would not be having the likes of BA/Virgin/easy taking their cadets. That's for sure. That being said, instructor retention is an issue these days (I was told by a representative at an L3 open day, so straight from the horses mouth) with many being straight out of flight training themselves. I never said I am experienced, but there is something to be said about spending 27 out of my 30 hours next to instructors on the complete opposite of the spectrum in terms of experience!

I apologise if my previous post was poorly worded and/or sounded like I have no respect for academies and their instructors. That is not the case and I am very much looking forward to starting my training with them and becoming the best aviator I can be. I cannot wait to be back in control of an aircraft, I have missed it dearly the past few years.

[TACHO]

I'm not sure this an entirely fair response. As I said, I fully trust the academies. If they were no good you would not be having the likes of BA/Virgin/easy taking their cadets. That's for sure. That being said, instructor retention is an issue these days (I was told by a representative at an L3 open day, so straight from the horses mouth) with many being straight out of flight training themselves. I never said I am experienced, but there is something to be said about spending 27 out of my 30 hours next to instructors on the complete opposite of the spectrum in terms of experience!

I apologise if my previous post was poorly worded and/or sounded like I have no respect for academies and their instructors. That is not the case and I am very much looking forward to starting my training with them and becoming the best aviator I can be. I cannot wait to be back in control of an aircraft, I have missed it dearly the past few years.


My response was slightly (very) tongue in cheek. I've had the pleasure of flying with people from the armed forces, academies and everything in between, I think where this thread falls short is people are generalising far too much, at both ends of the spectrum...

The ex military guys I've flown have been a mixed bag, some were great people and good pilots, others I wouldn't want to share a bag of crisps with, let alone a flight deck... just because someone has flown something fast and pointy doesn't necessarily mean they have the 'right stuff' in a commercial environment.... there are many transferrable skills that certainly hold merit, but conversely there are occasionally traits preferred by the military that make for a tough day out too. You can quite easily swop the words 'ex military' for 'academy students' without any real difference to my experience of the above. I have flown with cadets who were an absolute joy, and some who believed they were 'the chosen' with similar results to the above. I couldn't say who was better however, as to be quite honest I've met geniuses and idiots aplenty regardless of what 'group' they came from.

As for the aptitude tests, that only holds water so far, in the end they prove very little, but are just a hoop to whittle the numbers down... again I've flown with graduates from numerous schemes with various 'stages' of selection, and found it hard to believe in some instances that they could have been 'chosen' for anything. At the end of the day it boils down to the individual and their motivation, not the training organisations... the only caveat being that the industry at the moment has certainly made it possible due to BOMAD (bank of mum and dad) that anyone can turn up, regardless of ability, motivation OR personality and become a pilot... and herein lies the problem, they are making money, and even if a candidate is failing, that is a good thing as they will need to spend extra to get to the required standard, which equals profit for the organisation.

Want proof? CTC used to have a 3% pass rate at selection... which equaled max 3 people a month onto their ab initio course. what is it they take nowadays? 30-40 people? Either there has been a vast increase in applications or the bar has been lowered?

[Olympia463]

Just to digress and to interject a bit of (I think needed) balance into the thread, because I'm getting a bit uncomfortable with some of the stereotyping of "newbies" I am reading.

By way of background I'm a current Longhaul P1. My route to that seat was via a little gliding, then flying training in the RAF, fast jet tours, then CFS - student QFI/Basic FTS QFI and then later at CFS itself instructing instructors. After that and whilst in my mid-thirties I took the DEP route into an airline that selected and continues to select by way of a multi day selection procedure.

Nowadays in my day job I am increasingly working (both on the aircraft and in the simulator under test) alongside sub-thirty year old DEPs who prior to their previous airline were probably trained by the likes of CTC rather than the military... I have also sat on the jump seat recently (short haul) behind a very young cadet very new to the airline, early training done by CTC/L3.....

My perspective on this, FWIW, is that there are actually a lot of very good, very competent young pilots out there flying the line.

I accept I may be lucky in that the airline I work for weeds out the ham fisted slow thinking candidates during it's selection process... perhaps it would be helpful to find out where the outliers, the "2000 hours, can't land a 737/A320 pilots" are working and avoid those airlines...

Now, deep breath, back to the topic...

Ah! Wiggy you give yourself away! Fast jet flying must be the nearest thing to gliding I guess. Some years back after I had retired from flying gliders I met a fast jet pilot also long retired from the cockpit. We decided to see if flying was like roller skating something you never forget, and to do this cheaply we signed up for a week at our local gliding club. I went solo after about four trips mainly because I had never flown plastic gliders before, and they were much slippier than the wooden ones I was used to. My friend had several thousand hours in Sea Harriers some of them shooting down Argies in the Falklands. He went solo on the second day. I think that says it all for our handling skills, SA, and airmanship.