Flying an Airbus with 140hrs

[Check Airman]

Hi,
Not critical of the crew's actions here (I haven't even read the report), but something in the summary (https://avherald.com/h?article=4f3128c0&opt=0) stood out

Commander’s Flying Experience: 4,412 hours (of which 4,272 were on type)

I thought you needed to have ~200-250 hrs to get a CPL. Have things been relaxed to the extent that pilots with 140 hrs are able to get into an Airbus? At 140 hrs, I hadn't quite figured out crosswind landings yet. (Some would argue that I still haven't but that's for another day :))

[Denti]

Well, doing an MPL course cadets can begin flying Airbus or similar aircraft with less than 100 hours experience in real aircraft. They will have substantial simulator experience though and are trained on the SOPs from the sponsoring airline from day one. In fact the line training on their first commercial type is part of their initial license training.

I have flown with quite a few of those MPL cadets and generally they were quite good.

[Australopithecus]

I would guess that there is an error in the hours summary. My own airline takes pride in the fact that I have 7,000 hours total, but 21,000 on type.

[rudestuff]

It's entirely plausible. Plenty of cadet pilots in Europe get their first jet job in Europe with less than 200 hours.

[logansi]

I don't see how you get there with 140 hours even with sim

70 Hours dual total for PPL, CPL and MEIR?

200 is believable, I know plenty of Chinese cadets flying everything from A320s to 777s and A350s who only have 200 hours not on type.

[rudestuff]

That'll be 140 hours SEP/MEP plus SIM hours. There will be a regulatory minimum number of 'real' flight hours, but the focus of the training will be in two crew operations, and the licence limited as such.
​​​​​​
Someone trained an licenced this way will not be allowed to fly a Cessna (or anything) single pilot, unless/until they also meet the CPL requirements and take the CPL flight test.

[olster]

Really not a good idea.

[PoppaJo]

Add Sim time onto that. They are not powering down the runway at Luton with 140hrs, just yet.

Really not a good idea.
Track record is fairly good. Probably one of the better programs around. I’m no fan of these programs however it’s miles better compared to the one my employer runs.

[rudestuff]

Really not a good idea.
Why? They've passed a type rating test to the authorities' satisfaction. They're flying multi-crew, they've had their safety pilot released and it's the only type they know so there's no bad/old habits to revert to.

[deja vu]

I flew with cadets with around 300 hours total time in the A330, most did very well, they could fly the magenta line, program the box and recite the FCOM line and verse with very limited understanding of it's meaning. If it was not on ECAM or in the QRH, we are screwed. So technology has replaced experience, it works up to a point.

I recall at 300 hours I was only just allowed to take the club's Cherokee 6 for a burn.

[olster]

Why? If you can barely solo a Cessna 150 without trepidation I fail to see how sitting in the rhs of a Boeing or Airbus is a good idea. Call me a bluff old traditionalist if you will but I prefer a pilot even of the airline variety to have a modicum of flying skill or experience. Reading part B and quoting sops is not really a substitute. It’s probably just me...

[portsharbourflyer]

Easyjet MPL has been around since 2009 to 2012, so it stands that early MPLs could easily have made command by now.

The Easyjet MPL course has only has about 70 to 85 hours of real flying content.
So if you ignore sim time you could even have some one with only 70 hours of actual flight time flying as a First Officer at Easyjet.

[Atlantic Explorer]

Why? If you can barely solo a Cessna 150 without trepidation I fail to see how sitting in the rhs of a Boeing or Airbus is a good idea. Call me a bluff old traditionalist if you will but I prefer a pilot even of the airline variety to have a modicum of flying skill or experience. Reading part B and quoting sops is not really a substitute. It’s probably just me...

No Olster it’s not just you, I’m with you all the way. It seems to be the way the industry is going. It’s all fine until something goes wrong, then the lack of stick and rudder experience will show it’s ugly head.

[krismiler]

I flew with an MPL F/O who had 160 hours total time and the bus was his first twin. They're fine as long as everything stays on the rails and nothing happens that they haven't been trained for in the sim.

Once things go outside the box, there is no previous experience to fall back on and they are stuffed.

[reubee]

Hi,
Not critical of the crew's actions here (I haven't even read the report), but something in the summary (https://avherald.com/h?article=4f3128c0&opt=0) stood out



I thought you needed to have ~200-250 hrs to get a CPL. Have things been relaxed to the extent that pilots with 140 hrs are able to get into an Airbus? At 140 hrs, I hadn't quite figured out crosswind landings yet. (Some would argue that I still haven't but that's for another day :))
you are reading avherald, scroll down for the "Arabia A320 at Sharjah on Sep 18th 2018, intersection line up departed in wrong direction" that was last updated on Wed Jan 12th 2022 and observe the co-pilots hours in that incident. "The GCAA reported the first officer under training (34, MPL, 159 hours total, 159 hours on type) occupying the right hand seat was pilot flying"

[krismiler]

The flying club where I got my PPL had restrictions on pilots with less than 200 hours total time. They couldn't fly the Mooney as it was a complex single with retractable gear.

Back then, with a CPL and 200 hours you were instructing or doing single engine charter if you were lucky. 1000 hours and an instrument rating got you into a Baron. With 2000 hours, the airlines would look at you.

The system wasn't perfect but generally the silly mistakes were made and learned from at piston engine level before you got onto the serious stuff.

[OPENDOOR]

The flying club where I got my PPL had restrictions on pilots with less than 200 hours total time. They couldn't fly the Mooney as it was a complex single with retractable gear.

Back then, with a CPL and 200 hours you were instructing or doing single engine charter if you were lucky. 1000 hours and an instrument rating got you into a Baron. With 2000 hours, the airlines would look at you.

The system wasn't perfect but generally the silly mistakes were made and learned from at piston engine level before you got onto the serious stuff.
Looking back I reckon I was at my most dangerous as a 100 hour pilot. I really thought I knew what I was doing. By the time I got my CPL IR and 1500 hours I developed some humility.

[601]

Easyjet MPL has been around since 2009 to 2012, so it stands that early MPLs could easily have made command by now.
So we could now have two pilots on the fight deck with no real world experience?

[3Greens]

So we could now have two pilots on the fight deck with no real world experience?
well apart from 10years flying for easyjet. What would you call “real world”?

[Vokes55]

I can’t think of one time in my 6000 hours flying four different Boeing types that I thought “phew, thank god I did those touch and go’s in the C-172 or I’d really have been in the sh*t”.

Seriously, MPL schemes have been around for almost 15 years. Cadet schemes with 170-200 hour kids straight out of flight school even longer. Flying is safer than it ever has been. Some people need to get over the fact that things have changed from the days of their heroic flight instruction or “single engine charter” hour building, and they’re not going back any time soon.

[FBW390]

Flying is safer than ever? Very recently EK at TO flying at night 75 ft above the buildings…A very young Captain…Then EK Again taking off with no clearance , stopped by the tower, runway was still occupied….QR TO from intersection on 09R in MIA….and there are others…Is that safe ? No…Actually the safety level is not improving…

[FlightDetent]

LH landing on the wrong airport runway, BA taking a intersection tkof inappropriately, SU killing people in a Sukhoi, PA no-gear landing, various airlines wrong turns after take-off HKG, yet another N-registered 737 overrun...

[Consol]

I was something of an MPL skeptic but having flown with several holders I find them very well trained and capable pilots.
Bear in mind in the large parts of the planet with little GA and small air forces then there is no alternative to the MPL or fATPL route to large aircraft. Where exactly are you going to get 2000 hours on Cessnas and Beeches?

[AIMINGHIGH123]

I have said it elsewhere on this forum. Instructor SEP/MEP or bashing the circuit doesn’t necessarily make a good airline pilot.

We had a 10 year SEP/MEP instructor join my last outfit. Lovely guy and could fly the aircraft fine but operating on the line apparently he was down right dangerous. He got given 3 chances at final line check and failed. Bye bye. His landings etc were all ok but just couldn’t grasp airline flying. I never flew with him but spoke in crew room and all the line trainers said they tried so hard but the penny wasn’t dropping.

[172_driver]

There is ample of opportunity to learn "airline stick and rudder" on the line. But that's also often frowned upon by many...
In my opinion it all depends on what we want to be, button pushers or aviators. Because we're sternly heading for the former. Amplified by MPL licenses, thinner and thinner FCOMs, less and less sim-training.

[FlyingStone]

So we could now have two pilots on the fight deck with no real world experience?

I agree with you.

Thousands of hours on type within the airline's network in all-weather ops are useless. They should be replaced by drilling holes in a CAVOK sky with a C150.

[Vokes55]

Flying is safer than ever? Very recently EK at TO flying at night 75 ft above the buildings…A very young Captain…Then EK Again taking off with no clearance , stopped by the tower, runway was still occupied….QR TO from intersection on 09R in MIA….and there are others…Is that safe ? No…Actually the safety level is not improving…


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x684/b7712179_b3dd_4146_81ed_8a7012973057_b56e7b8219957e7d1a5b242 4181e5f539af32b4c.png

And that doesn’t take into account the massive increase in flights over that time.

But hey, stick to your bitter delusional assumption that those who flew a PA28 for 2000 hours are somehow more experienced. I think most people who actually fly commercial aircraft will tell you they gained most of their “experience” through flying commercial aircraft.

[metalboi69]

If they can fly the aircraft in a safe manner, I say why not let them?

[tubby linton]

If they can fly the aircraft in a safe manner, I say why not let them?
A number of reasons including that they do not have the ability to fly the aircraft to its full capability , in particular up to the max crosswind and they have no knowledge of the airfields and airspace they are operating in.

[Consol]

A number of reasons including that they do not have the ability to fly the aircraft to its full capability , in particular up to the max crosswind and they have no knowledge of the airfields and airspace they are operating in.
Not many airlines allow junior FOs to make max crosswind landings anyhow. Not many Captains either.

[tubby linton]

One of my previous employers allowed FOs and of course Captains to land the aircraft up to the max crosswind. Can you call yourself a pilot if you cannot do that?

[FlyingStone]

they have no knowledge of the airfields and airspace they are operating in.

How does one get knowledge of LHR, FRA, CDG etc. and its sorrounding airspace? By flying there with a C172?

[tubby linton]

How does one get knowledge of LHR, FRA, CDG etc. and its sorrounding airspace? By flying there with a C172?
In the pre MPL days you probably went there in a light twin as an air taxi or corporate , or in a freighter as I did.My first commercial job in the UK was as a copilot in an antique turboprop but we did fly into Heathrow and other major airports in the rush hour.
Air Europe sent all of their low hour co-pilots to a turboprop operator for a number of years.

[FBW390]

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x684/b7712179_b3dd_4146_81ed_8a7012973057_b56e7b8219957e7d1a5b242 4181e5f539af32b4c.png

And that doesn’t take into account the massive increase in flights over that time.

But hey, stick to your bitter delusional assumption that those who flew a PA28 for 2000 hours are somehow more experienced. I think most people who actually fly commercial aircraft will tell you they gained most of their “experience” through flying commercial aircraft.
You're right Vokes55, there are less deaths every year, but this is not what I said...I said all the events I described in post 22 where unsafe. This is different. But I have your point.
Let's take the crash of the Asiana 777 in SFO in July 2013; there has been 3 casualties "only", but was it a safe flight? Not at all, of course; it's different...The pilots showed very poor skills, in fact no skill at all, because they couldn't adapt to a new situation...

[JanetFlight]

Back in the day, 1994/1995 my CPL, some of us started flying the L-1011 with +/- 160 hrs on the right seat, directly from the lil'school ;)
No EASA, no JAA, only the european CAA acc.each country in EU.
In 2001 we did the upgrade to ATPL and then came JAA, EASA, and all those lovely aviation fairytales.

[pineteam]

Yeah flying is safer today thanks to the advanced and robust aircraft we fly nowadays. Definitely not thanks to the pilots. In the last 20/30 years, how many of these accidents or serious incidents could have been avoided if real aviators were in the front?

[Check Airman]

Why? They've passed a type rating test to the authorities' satisfaction. They're flying multi-crew, they've had their safety pilot released and it's the only type they know so there's no bad/old habits to revert to.

They don't have any prior experience to fall back on either. Double edged sword. A lot easier to unlearn bad habits than to gain experience.

[Check Airman]

How does one get knowledge of LHR, FRA, CDG etc. and its sorrounding airspace? By flying there with a C172?

Actually, yes. I buzzed around class B/C airports in a 172, speaking to the same controllers I speak to now in a jet. You better believe that helped the first time I flew a jet into ORD during line training.

[Check Airman]

Thanks to all who responded. It still seems bizarre that someone so inexperienced can be given that level of responsibility. (Again, not referencing this captain in particular, just the system in general).

[hans brinker]

One of my previous employers allowed FOs and of course Captains to land the aircraft up to the max crosswind. Can you call yourself a pilot if you cannot do that?

I think the more pertinent question is:"When do you decide that going to the limit isn't the safe choice". I do think that flying by yourself, gives (or should give) you the ability to make the decision: legal, but unsafe. Having pilots that can make that decision as opposed to having SOPs that forbid anything over 5 knots cross wind anytime for FOs is IMO better. Can that experience only be accrued through flying your C152 solo in VFR conditions? No, but getting locked into always flying with FD/AT/AP on from 100ft till 100ft isn't the answer.

[AIMINGHIGH123]

Yeah flying is safer today thanks to the advanced and robust aircraft we fly nowadays. Definitely not thanks to the pilots. In the last 20/30 years, how many of these accidents or serious incidents could have been avoided if real aviators were in the front?

Disagree. Improvements have been made everywhere. It’s not just the aircraft. Tenerife disaster?
CRM has improved massively. Airlines that have poor CRM are usually the ones having the close shaves. A few incidents that happened in my previous airline came down to poor CRM. I flew with said pilots and flying was good and as a single pilot they would be fine. Operating an airliner sometimes poor decisions were made I challenged a few times. They refused to apologise but hey it avoided an ASR going in on more than 1 occasion.

Someone earlier said most pilots would say they learnt more once line flying and for me personally that’s the case. PPL and CPL seems almost pointless looking back on it. I can’t even remember my PPL test. CPL barely. IR training was the only area I feel transferred to operating an airliner. The hour building etc pretty pointless. Yes route planning was fun and I enjoyed it but feels pointless now unless you want to fly for fun.
I have no desire to go back to SEP flying now.
Unless someone is willing to let me have a go in a Spitfire of course.

[FlightDetent]

C/A it boils down to one's personality. How much you knowledge you can suck out of thin air. There's no war stories in MEP GA or Easy A319 anymore. There's nowhere to learn those raw instincts from.

Practical issues aside, such as the non-existent GA / part 135 in EU which to-date remains the World's second most busy airspace.

My first international + jet flights were FRA, FRA, BRU, MAN, IST, MXP, CDG, MAD, FCO, no different to many others with 254 hrs at that time (+including 35° An-28 SIM for the IR). Even without an MPL or airline cadetships scheme, those destinations were specifically scheduled. LHR came on week 6, although that required 10 hrs groundschool with an LFI for the UK procedures.

Speaking of LHR and cadetships, I will not be too far off the mark assuming 50% of CMD of the BA's transatlantic fleet have joined the airline via the ab-initio route. Over all I think hans' #40 hits the key points equally and objectively, no surprise from him.

- - - - - - - - -

Yes the BA's cadets did not become captains after 4 years which also brings up the issue of demographics/age/maturity (as a group!). In which case I tend to smirk at the MPL captains (strangely enough, the FOs taste just fine). At the same time self-awareness observes that my own definition of 'reasonably acceptable' line of PIC experience lies exactly where I stood myself, seeing that as adequate, while rejecting any lesser experience of the younger others. Okay, know exactly where that came from. :}

The elephant in the room seems to be:
'The true core PIC competencies are forged by flying shoddy aeroplanes in crappy weather on a poorly paid mission with sub-standard infrastructural support under a relative absence of professional guidance and regulatory oversight.'

With a wide smile, I agree with that (pls fix the grammar before quoting me) but it's not a workable solution for the oncoming generation. And it was not for mine.

Pass your message?

[wiggy]

How does one get knowledge of LHR, FRA, CDG etc. and its sorrounding airspace? By flying there with a C172?

Like you FS I’m more than a bit perplexed by that particular aspect of this whole argument.

It was not uncommon in the Long haul world, probably also short haul one , for the company to introduce some exciting :bored: destination and shortly there after for it to appear on rosters…some destinations were busy or busier than LHR, some of which had interesting terrain issues, some even had a combination of both…..

It was never considered essential to send crews off to fly into or around said airport in a Cessna, you were never hired out to a turbo prop operator to gain experience in the field….the reality was you were expected to act as a professional - you did your home work, read the briefings, looked long and hard at the plates and got on with it.

Worse worse case, and one which was increasingly rare, was familiarization by way of the simulator.

[krismiler]

Light aircraft flying will build stick and rudder skills, pilots will learn decision making, and the inevitable errors won't involve involve an airliner with 180 pax at a major airport.

A new CPL holder has had to cram in and regurgitate all the knowledge for his license exams, type rating and company SOPs, of which only a certain percentage has been fully retained. The necessary things are found out in the real world. In the 30+ years of flying since I did my CPL I can honestly say that I never used my knowledge of hard and soft iron magnetism or Mercator's projection.

Give me an F/O with even 500 hours total and a couple of hundred of those in the right seat of a turbo prop, over a new MPL graduate anyday. 200hour pilots are fine as second officers where errors aren't critical and they can watch and learn.

Unfortunately it is difficult for airlines without a long haul fleet, that are in countries without a large military or general aviation pool, to find suitable applicants.

[Denti]

I believe there is a huge cultural difference especially between the USA and most of Europe. European airlines were basically forced to run their own flight schools for a long time, as there is not a big GA sector and after WW2 there was a lost generation. And yes, that is ancient history but of course led to the european norm of having pilots trained directly into airline flight decks.

And of course there is much to be said about structured and focused training, the military has done that pretty much forever. Of course there are differences between civil and military training, as the „mission profile“ is very much different.

Having flown with MPL cadets as well as former MPL now captains i did not see a marked difference between them, the „normal“ abinitio CPL/ATPL holders or those having worked their way up outside that structured training route, except that the latter sometimes had more of a problem with SOP centered operation.

I have to say that training changed for the better in recent years with first ATQP and then the change over to EBT, much more relevant training can be done in the valuable time in the box that way.

[pineteam]

Disagree. Improvements have been made everywhere. It’s not just the aircraft. Tenerife disaster?
CRM has improved massively. Airlines that have poor CRM are usually the ones having the close shaves. A few incidents that happened in my previous airline came down to poor CRM.

You have a good point. I totally agree. CRM today versus the past has been improved a lot. It was a serious issue and it has been addressed and corrected accordingly. CRM is as important as flying skills. But I’m talking about pure handling skills. It’s a no brainer it’s a real problem and responsible for many accidents and incidents nowadays but nothing is done on that matter. But why??? And in my outfit, most serious incidents was linked to poor flying skills and slavery to automation.
And this is easily avoidable if company and pilots take their own responsibility and fly raw data during line. Even if a jet is your first aircraft it’s not that complicated, just disconnect everything when you have a chance. The more you do the easier it gets; simple as that.

[Vokes55]

Yeah flying is safer today thanks to the advanced and robust aircraft we fly nowadays. Definitely not thanks to the pilots. In the last 20/30 years, how many of these accidents or serious incidents could have been avoided if real aviators were in the front?

Right, and what do you think these MPL cadets are flying? DC-8s? 707s?



Give me an F/O with even 500 hours total and a couple of hundred of those in the right seat of a turbo prop, over a new MPL graduate anyday. 200hour pilots are fine as second officers where errors aren't critical and they can watch and learn.
.

Give me a captain that doesn’t base their first impressions of the FO’s ability on what they did or didn’t do 10+ years ago any day.

There are also plenty of trainers that will tell you that those who have the most issues on OCC courses for jet jobs are those that come from Turboprops. A Boeing or an Airbus is not a Turboprop or a C-172. It’s a bit like saying to drive a car, you have to be able to ride a bicycle.

[pineteam]

Right, and what do you think these MPL cadets are flying? DC-8s? 707s?




Give me a captain that doesn’t base their first impressions of the FO’s ability on what they did or didn’t do 10+ years ago any day.

There are also plenty of trainers that will tell you that those who have the most issues on OCC courses for jet jobs are those that come from Turboprops. A Boeing or an Airbus is not a Turboprop or a C-172. It’s a bit like saying to drive a car, you have to be able to ride a bicycle.

Your point about the MPL?

No they are not flying 707 but they should be able to. They are flying airliners that even my grandma could fly when everything goes normal which is 99.99% of the time. But when things go south you want someone who’s able to handle the plane not just playing with knobs.

I agree with your second paragraph. I know some pilots who come from turboprops who are actually terrible and some who only flew the Bus and they fly 10 times better. Why? Cause they hand fly the planes like a conventional plane in line operations. Simple as that.

[PilotLZ]

There is a lot of idyllic talk about some ideal world where initial training would be more extensive, cadet FOs would first start on conventional, less automated aircraft and all the likes. And only one question is habitually left unanswered: who will pay for all that? You can't make training indefinitely expensive. Neither will airlines throw away their Airbus-only fleets and replace them with turboprops so that newbie pilots can learn more about manual flying. That's the reality of the market and we have to work around it.

[Vokes55]

No they are not flying 707 but they should be able to. They are flying airliners than even my grandma could fly when everything goes normal which is 99.99% of the time. But when things go south you want someone who’s able to handle the plane not just playings with knobs.


And who says they can’t? If somebody has 4000 hours on the Airbus, has passed all of their sim checks, passed a command selection and then passed their command course, I’m sure they’d manage to pass a type rating for an aircraft that your grandma couldn’t fly.

When things “go south”, I’d probably want somebody who can speak English too.

[rudestuff]

When things 'go south' you want the guy next to you to be on the same page you are and not just along for the ride at that point. Understanding what it's doing and why needs time on type, and we all start with zero whatever our background.

[pineteam]

And who says they can’t? If somebody has 4000 hours on the Airbus, has passed all of their sim checks, passed a command selection and then passed their command course, I’m sure they’d manage to pass a type rating for an aircraft that your grandma couldn’t fly.

When things “go south”, I’d probably want somebody who can speak English too.Who said they can’t? Well explain to me Air France 447, Turkish 1951 and many others! To be clear, I’m not targeting MPL specifically;I’m just tired of people denying the facts that many pilots can’t fly anymore. How many more accidents do you need?? By the way even Airbus urges their pilots to hand fly during line operations.
And for my english, yes sorry I do make mistakes, my mother language is french. Pardonnez-moi monsieur. xD

[Chiefttp]

As a USAF pilot,Instructor, and Commercial pilot now I can vouch what others have said here. I was trained by the military and was flying T-38’s at 80 hours total time, fingertip formation too (3ft wingtip to wingtip spacing ). So the MPL scheme, of which I’m not too familiar with, can produce a good product with minimum flight time. However, over the years instructing these new pilots, especially in the C-17 I started to notice a trend. The new automated FMC jets have a lot of capability. As someone mentioned, I could teach my grandmother to fly an A-320 or B-787. The disturbing trend I noticed is their reactions when the automation hiccuped, and the automation level was degraded to basic heading hold or flight level change, or even worse, no autopilot, these younger pilots were lost. Think of what happens to these folks when they lose their cell phones and suddenly have to figure things out on their own. Panic ensues.
The advantage of flying a C-152 around the patch for a few hundred hours is you develop hand flying skills, and BASIC instrument skills. I saw this behavior numerous times in the C-17 when we lost our automation and Nav capabilities (called degrade mode) and the younger pilots were totally lost. One instance, We were enroute to an Air Refueling and we lost our Timing control. I explained to the new pilot to compute our ground speed, divide by 6 to figure our miles per minute, then figure out what time we need to meet the tanker and accelerate or slow down to make our timing. She never had to do this, and had no clue. Us older guys aren’t superior to the younger ones, but most of us flew dumbed down planes for years so we have a “Tool Kit” of skills that mitigate issues when we lose automation, they don’t. Our mission as experienced pilots Is to pass on and teach the younger generation some of these “tricks” we used back in the day . I just took my annual checkride and the scenario I was tasked with had no auto-throttles and VNAV inop..Not a big deal because I flew for 20 years without either one.

[olster]

Chieftp, you really nailed it for me. Basic skills learnt on basic aircraft types are priceless. I agree that the modern generation are either as good or have the potential to be just as good. I learnt on the B737-200 the rudiments of swept wing flying with a reasonable amount of general aviation background including making decisions and getting frightened; I am certainly no better than anyone else but I am glad that my experience led up to the jet in a more organic way rather than being moulded by an L3 or equivalent.

[Less Hair]

It would be cheap, team building and highly motivating to invite every single pro pilot cadet to two to three weeks of glider flying first. Say up to the first three (short pattern) solos. This way they would learn a lot about flying no computer based software can teach them and the totally unable could be sorted out before it's too late.

[3Greens]

As a USAF pilot,Instructor, and Commercial pilot now I can vouch what others have said here. I was trained by the military trained and was flying T-38’s at 80 hours total time, fingertip formation too (3ft wingtip to wingtip spacing ). So the MPL scheme, of which I’m not too familiar with, can produce a good product with minimum flight time. However, over the years instructing these new pilots, especially in the C-17 I started to notice a trend. The new automated FMC jets have a lot of capability. As someone mentioned, I could teach my grandmother to fly an A-320 or B-787. The disturbing trend I noticed is their reactions when the automation hiccuped, and the automation level was degraded to basic heading hold or flight level change, or even worse, no autopilot, these younger pilots were lost. Think of what happens to these folks who lose their cell phones and suddenly have to figure things out on their own. Panic ensues.
The advantage of flying a C-152 around the patch for a few hundred hours is you develop hand flying skills, and BASIC instrument skills. I saw this behavior numerous times in the C-17 when we lost our automation and Nav capabilities (called degrade mode) and the younger pilots were totally lost. One instance, We were enroute to an Air Refueling and we lost our Timing control. I explained to the new pilot to compute our ground speed, divide by 6 to figure our miles per minute, then figure out what time we need to meet the tanker and accelerate or slow down to make our timing. She never had to do this, and had no clue. Us older guys aren’t superior to the younger ones, but most of us flew dumbed down planes for years so we have a “Tool Kit” of skills that mitigate issues when we lose automation, they don’t. Our mission as experienced pilots Is to pass on and teach the younger generation some of these “tricks” we used back in the day . I just took my annual checkride and the scenario I was tasked with had no auto-throttles and VNAV inop..Not a big deal because I flew for 20 years without either one.
an excellent post sir

[Winemaker]

I explained to the new pilot to compute our ground speed, divide by 6 to figure our miles per minute......
SLF here; I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't you divide by 60 to get miles/minute?

[Chiefttp]

Winemaker,
your correct…we tend to simplify formulas in flight due to lack of time,.if my ground speed was 360 knots, I just divided by 6, as I know we weren’t doing 60 miles per minute…just Pilot shorthand.

[JanetFlight]

As a USAF pilot,Instructor, and Commercial pilot now I can vouch what others have said here. I was trained by the military and was flying T-38’s at 80 hours total time, fingertip formation too (3ft wingtip to wingtip spacing ). So the MPL scheme, of which I’m not too familiar with, can produce a good product with minimum flight time. However, over the years instructing these new pilots, especially in the C-17 I started to notice a trend. The new automated FMC jets have a lot of capability. As someone mentioned, I could teach my grandmother to fly an A-320 or B-787. The disturbing trend I noticed is their reactions when the automation hiccuped, and the automation level was degraded to basic heading hold or flight level change, or even worse, no autopilot, these younger pilots were lost. Think of what happens to these folks when they lose their cell phones and suddenly have to figure things out on their own. Panic ensues.
The advantage of flying a C-152 around the patch for a few hundred hours is you develop hand flying skills, and BASIC instrument skills. I saw this behavior numerous times in the C-17 when we lost our automation and Nav capabilities (called degrade mode) and the younger pilots were totally lost. One instance, We were enroute to an Air Refueling and we lost our Timing control. I explained to the new pilot to compute our ground speed, divide by 6 to figure our miles per minute, then figure out what time we need to meet the tanker and accelerate or slow down to make our timing. She never had to do this, and had no clue. Us older guys aren’t superior to the younger ones, but most of us flew dumbed down planes for years so we have a “Tool Kit” of skills that mitigate issues when we lose automation, they don’t. Our mission as experienced pilots Is to pass on and teach the younger generation some of these “tricks” we used back in the day . I just took my annual checkride and the scenario I was tasked with had no auto-throttles and VNAV inop..Not a big deal because I flew for 20 years without either one.

Marvellous...tanx for this lil written gem...cheers from Portugal, the land of the sun :ok:

[pineteam]

Beautifully said Chiefttp. Thanks for sharing your experience. I also used this trick every time I’m flying: Gs/6 and then times X to know my vertical speed required for a X degrees flight path. It’s sad to see many pilots just relying on the MCDU predictions. They don’t do their own calculations in their head. Why would you?! The FMS will tell you! That’s in the head of lots of pilots sadly. For sure guys like us who has the chance to fly very conventional aircraft, we have an advantage. But I believe we can teach the new guys from our experience and they can be as good if not better if they are willing to fly modern airliners in safely and efficient way. It’s important to maintain some of these old habits otherwise you become automation addicted and rusty. Airbus made a nice video ( available for free on Win videos) about it and they explain that basic flying skills is like a sport. If you run like once every 6 months, well you won’t do great and no improvement. But if you run 2 / 3 times a week, not only you will improve fast but you will be at an excellent level. I can not agree more on this. Pilots underestimate how fast their skills will erode if no effort is made to maintain them. I offered to my colleagues to fly raw data and I heard before: « Nah I’m confident with my flying skills » and then you hear their names coming up how poorly their perform in the sim. xD

[krismiler]

Well said Chiefttp.

Us old timers still have the old-fashioned tools in the bottom draw, they may be a bit rusty, but when the modern tools go wrong, an old pipe wrench and a pair of pliers will often get you out of trouble.

[Vokes55]

What on earth has raw data flying and doing maths in your head got to do with MPL schemes and whether somebody’s flown Turboprops or private air charter or not? A pilot’s reluctance to fly raw data is usually due to company policy, not because they don’t have the confidence or ability to do it. In some parts of the world, a simple mistake made whilst going against company policy and flying raw data would see them out of a job (and a residency visa). With FDM there’s no hiding or covering anything up any more.

Most airline pilots want to go to work, operate safely with appropriate use of automation and then go home at the end of the day. Most airline pilots want to stay out of management offices, keep their jobs and provide for their family. If you think flying a raw data, A/T off departure in a busy airspace with low level offs, tight turns, stepped climbs and speed restrictions somehow makes you a superior pilot, you’re wrong. It makes you a moron.

Thankfully the majority of pilots I’ve flown with have common sense and know that there’s a time and a place for manual flying and visual approaches. Oh, and most professional pilots know better than to discuss other pilots’ performance in the sim.

[double_barrel]

A pilot’s reluctance to fly raw data is usually due to company policy, not because they don’t have the confidence or ability to do it. In some parts of the world, a simple mistake made whilst going against company policy and flying raw data would see them out of a job (and a residency visa). With FDM there’s no hiding or covering anything up any more.

To play devil's advocate as an outsider to this world......Isn't that telling us that (most/all?) companies have decided that they would rather have pilots who use the automation effectively than pilots who know how to hand fly? When you feel that you want to build-up your experience doing something or other because it increases your confidence, adaptability, and ultimately safety, but you are prevented from doing that by company rules with draconian consequences, something has to be wrong. I suspect that the company policy is based on hard statistics showing that pilots make more errors than aircraft systems, and that fully understanding and using aircraft systems is the core of the job. When I look at accident reports, the proximate cause is almost always a crew who configured their systems wrongly for what they were trying to do, often with the systems working perfectly, sometimes with confusion resulting from a simple single hardware failure that was poorly handled. The catastrophic failures rescued by brilliant stick and rudder skills are vanishingly rare.

[Twiglet1]

In the pre MPL days you probably went there in a light twin as an air taxi or corporate , or in a freighter as I did.My first commercial job in the UK was as a copilot in an antique turboprop but we did fly into Heathrow and other major airports in the rush hour.
Air Europe sent all of their low hour co-pilots to a turboprop operator for a number of years.
Gone are the days when the Commander 4000 hours all at Easyjet and the FO did some flying the old way of flying school / twin making the coffee de-icing the aircraft / RHS in a regional / RHS in a bigger aircraft then Command after much more than 4000 hours. Yes I know I'm out of touch and an old geezer with 50 followers on twitter

[wiggy]

Double Barrel..

”I suspect that the company policy is based on hard statistics showing that pilots make more errors than aircraft systems, and that fully understanding and using aircraft systems is the core of the job.”

That is certainly sometimes the case; one airline made full time use of auto throttle (A/T) on likes of the T7 mandatory and that decision was based on the stats…

The claim was the data showed using A/T tended to result in unsurprisingly tighter speed control on final and also less dispersion of touchdown points, all leading to less chance of a runway excursion. The risk of deskilling was recognized but the risk of an excursion was thought to be the bigger threat.

[pineteam]

What on earth has raw data flying and doing maths in your head got to do with MPL schemes and whether somebody’s flown Turboprops or private air charter or not? A pilot’s reluctance to fly raw data is usually due to company policy, not because they don’t have the confidence or ability to do it. In some parts of the world, a simple mistake made whilst going against company policy and flying raw data would see them out of a job (and a residency visa). With FDM there’s no hiding or covering anything up any more.

Most airline pilots want to go to work, operate safely with appropriate use of automation and then go home at the end of the day. Most airline pilots want to stay out of management offices, keep their jobs and provide for their family. If you think flying a raw data, A/T off departure in a busy airspace with low level offs, tight turns, stepped climbs and speed restrictions somehow makes you a superior pilot, you’re wrong. It makes you a moron.

Thankfully the majority of pilots I’ve flown with have common sense and know that there’s a time and a place for manual flying and visual approaches. Oh, and most professional pilots know better than to discuss other pilots’ performance in the sim.
Vokes, clearly you miss understood my point. First of all where did I say that flying raw data in busy airspace was a good idea? One of the Golden rules of Airbus states: Use appropriate level of automation at all times ». Meaning if the weather is cavok, easy airport, it’s good idea to disconnect everything. But if it’s low clouds, sun in the face, crew are tired, then by all means, perform an autoland if you have to. It’s all about common sense. I never fly raw data when it’s not appropriate. First of all my outfit has restrictions and why I will put myself under unnecessary heavy workload? I’m not a fool like you seem to think I am. But if I had to in an emergency I would be able to do it as I practice regularly. I love the automation on Airbus, and I study my ass off to understand it and to be able to use it at its optimum capacity. But! You also need to maintain your handskills. This is a no brainer; Not my words, Airbus says so. Just go watch the Airbus video man. They explain it very well. And I know many airlines prohibit flying raw data. So what? They are obviously wrong and part of the problem. Emirates latest incident flying at 75 feet after airborne should raise some alarms. If you decide to work with these outfits, that’s your call.
You said also pilots don’t fly raw datas cause of company policy and not because of confidence and ability to do it. Sorry but that’s not true: My outfit allows raw data and many guys are not doing it cause of their lack of confidence and the phobia of FDM/QAR. I have seen many guys flying raw data and believe me if it was in IFR it would have been alarming. If pilots were confident with their flying skills they would not be so concerned with FDM/QAR. As long as you stay within the limits and correct when the PM is calling out the deviations there is no reason you will burst a QAR.. Now about the sim sessions: This is just about sharing our mistakes and experience in the sim to help our fellow colleagues. We are a small outfit. I’m never mocking other pilots. and I’m the first one to share my experiences when I did something stupid or any kind of mistakes in the sim or during line. Have a nice cold beer and chill out bro. =)

[Chiefttp]

“ If you think flying a raw data, A/T off departure in a busy airspace with low level offs, tight turns, stepped climbs and speed restrictions somehow makes you a superior pilot, you’re wrong. It makes you a moron.”

Actually it does make you a superior pilot, It’s essentially what we did every day in military pilot training, You’d be surprised at how well you could do it too if you take your time, study the departure/ arrival and have done it dozens of times before. Like others have said, the correct level of automation, at the proper phase of flight is the best course.

[Uplinker]

We seem to have dropped into hand flying Vs automatics, but the original thread was about low experience pilots flying modern complex jets.

More experience means you have seen more things, including unusual things. Flying C152s solo for several hundred hours and then basic turbo props for several thousand hours; there was the opportunity to consolidate hand flying skills and experience the real world and scare ourselves, and this helped us realise why instructors told to us do things in certain ways.

On an Airbus if you correctly follow Airbus SOPs, (and make appropriate considerations about weather and fuel etc) *, you cannot go very far wrong, and can conduct a safe flight quite easily. So a 140 hr cadet can in theory fly an Airbus safely - assuming they have successfully passed the type rating. I mean, we all passed our driving test and went out onto the motorway, travelling at 70mph only a few feet away from other traffic - a potentially far more dangerous environment - with much much less than 140hrs driving experience.

When things go wrong or non-normal however, that is when experience or lack of it becomes an issue. And in medium and big transport jets in four dimensions, as we know; things can go wrong very rapidly.

When TCAS first came in, there were a number of incidents of pilots who clearly panicked and hauled back on their yokes or dived down to avoid the "impending crash", or ignored or went opposite to the TCAS command, rather than calmly following the IVSI band, making a small adjustment to their V/S to avoid the other 'plane.

And we all know about AF447.

We had a GEN 1 go intermittent at FL350, and it was on/off/on/off, as quick as it takes to read that. ECAM could not keep up and the cockpit was like a Christmas tree of flashing lights, and audible warnings, (and the engine sounded like it was back-firing with the changes of loading on its gearbox). But although it seemed as if the world was about to end, we knew it was not a major issue - we were still airborne and in (manual) control. Madrid was just down there, so we could land quickly if we had to. But CRM, calm DODAR style diagnostics (and a lucky spot by me), sorted the problem out.

There will never be two 140 hour pilots on the flight deck together, but the the real question is whether it is sensible to have a 140 hr F/O with a weak P1C, or in the event of P1C incapacitation. Short-haul over western Europe gives many airports to autoland at and very good ATC, but long-haul in some areas and over the Ocean doesn't.

In an ideal world, cadets would have much more than 140 hrs before getting anywhere near a jet transport flight-deck.


* but this only comes with experience of course..........

[pineteam]

My bad Uplinker. I’m partly responsible for the off topic.
We don’t have any MPL pilots in the company I work for but we do have a decent amount of cadets who joined straight from flight school onto the Airbus. And for my personal experience, Most of the time I enjoyed more flying with these guys than some very experienced FOs cause the attitude is usually spot on and they are so willing to improve which makes me very happy. Yes they are struggling on landing for most of them at first but totally understandable and experience will fix it eventually.
@Chiefttp: I don’t know you but you seem to be the kind of TRE I would enjoy to fly with!=)

[TRENT210]

Flying ability aside what’s the general consensus on what these (usually) young MPL / Integrated FO’s are like to fly with as far as conversation is concerned?

A ex mil, legacy captain once told me that, in the main, their flying ability was usually very good however trying to make conversation at FL390 became a massive chore.

He said trying to chat with a 20 year kid who’s gone straight from college to a sausage factory school was a massive effort and made the cruise extremely boring. He was glad when he got an ex mil or an older FO with either previous flying experience or previous work experience to have a chat to.

Obviously we are paid to fly not to socialise but he had an interesting opinion.

[FlightDetent]

We don’t have any MPL pilots in the company I work for but we do have a decent amount of cadets who joined straight from flight school onto the Airbus. And for my personal experience, Most of the time I enjoyed more flying with these guys The flight hours to reach RHS A32x the fastest could be around 220 hrs for your cadets colleagues while MPLs get there with 140-ish as observed.

Different from the cadets, however, the MPL training is completely focused on that specific RHS job and type from very early on. Their IR / MEP is done on the type which will be awarded to obtain around 80 hours before touching its metal, under the sponsoring airline's SOP. Somewhat ironically they have more job-related experience than the cadets and should kick ass accordingly.

There will be weak points but those are broadly the same to anyone starting without previous commercial IFR experience.

[vilas]

Success of MPL pilot depends on talent spotting, quality of training imparted and the type of aircraft they are trained for. Airbus FBW being flight path stable is easier to handle than non FBW aircraft. They will benefit with good in depth training of automation and procedures. AF447 and QZ8501 happened more because lack of adequate knowledge of alternate law and stall recovery procedure and not because handling in alternate law is difficult. Many accidents are caused by experienced people. Now Airbus and B787(I think) unreliable speed poses no difficulty as it automated. Automation and MPL is here to stay.

[giggitygiggity]

Indeed, on QZ8501... Ex-fastjet captain with over 20,000hrs (including significant time on the F5, 737, F27...). FO was newish to the type, first airline with 2,300hrs total and 1,300 on the Airbus, so presumably the rest of those hours on something far lighter. All of that stick and rudder time didn't seem count for anything. Regional issues aside, over here a freshly minted (and line released) MPL religiously following the SOPs and ECAM by the book would have saved the day. I don't find any difficulty in operating at their speed or to their comfort level. A decent EBT solution from a reputable airline (eg one who has actually been approved to run an MPL) should discover their limitations and areas of weakness and train them upto scratch.

[pineteam]

Hi Vilas and Giggitygiggity,
I agree that knowing the emergency procedures are paramount and would have helped in the case of AF 447 and QZ8501. But Like Airbus explains: Basic skills is not something we unlocked with practice and maintain for life; unfortunately, it will erode in time if no practice. You can have 10 000 hours of flying stick and rudder like a champ but the day you stop, your performance in that aspect will go down. For example if professional tennis player stops training for many years, how will he perform? He would not stand a chance against any decent tennis players. When was the last time these poor pilots flew raw data last? Imagine in the case of QZ8501 if they were flying manual thrust on that day; I highly doubt the outcome would have been the same. Your scan for the pitch, speed, vertical speed and altitude is a must when you fly raw data to stay within the safe enveloppe. Flying with perfect automation behaviour all the times for so many years and you will naturally be less on your guard. I don’t know guys for me it’s a no brainer that these skills still need to be maintained. And looking at many of these accidents or incidents I can not stop thinking that if on that particular day if only the FD or auto thrust were off many lives could have been saved..

[Denti]

Hi Vilas and Giggitygiggity,
I agree that knowing the emergency procedures are paramount and would have helped in the case of AF 447 and QZ8501. But Like Airbus explains: Basic skills is not something we unlocked with practice and maintain for life; unfortunately, it will erode in time if no practice. You can have 10 000 hours of flying stick and rudder like a champ but the day you stop, your performance in that aspect will go down. For example if professional tennis player stops training for many years, how will he perform? He would not stand a chance against any decent tennis players. When was the last time these poor pilots flew raw data last? Imagine in the case of QZ8501 if they were flying manual thrust on that day; I highly doubt the outcome would have been the same. Your scan for the pitch, speed, vertical speed and altitude is a must when you fly raw data to stay within the safe enveloppe. Flying with perfect automation behaviour all the times for so many years and you will naturally be less on your guard. I don’t know guys for me it’s a no brainer that these skills still need to be maintained. And looking at many of these accidents or incidents I can not stop thinking that if on that particular day if only the FD or auto thrust were off many lives could have been saved..

Again missing the topic. Yes, raw data and manual handling on the line, when conditions permit, is useful. But doesn't have anything at all to do with the amount of training needed to reach the flight deck of an airliner, which was the start of this topic: is it enough to have 140 hours to start on an airbus. And yes, it is, under the condition of a well done selection and focused and structured training. And yes, i have seen MPL students do near perfect raw data approaches and non-MPL do a mess of things in similar conditions.

[pineteam]

Again missing the topic.
Sorry Denti. I know I was off topic just could not let it go. xD
Jokes aside, I agree with you.

[vilas]

Pineteam
BY all means a pilot in the cockpit must have atleast the minimum required handling skill. But a trainee who performs a perfect raw data handling in a simulator just adjusts in the aircraft to real life feel and turbulence etc. He doesn't have much problem because his scan is already set. You come across thousands of experienced pilots who's alternate/direct law experience is only in simulator. So what's the problem? And if once in a life time if someone did it in real life it doesn't make him better or worse pilot. Thanks to PW GTF which gave practice of engine failures in real life otherwise very few pilot faced it on line. More shocking is two check captains in the cockpit the PF wrongly pushes EXPED button doesn't know how to disconnect, causes THR LK then applies wrong procedure and causes overspeed of flaps by 38kts and GPWS alert before the madness ends. I don't think any MPL has done such a crazy thing. Experience means nothing without sufficient knowledge of key systems.

[FlightDetent]

While perfectly correct, vilas, by coincidence you underscore pinteam's topic. Had those two been more proficient with the drill of FDs off, pitch, power, A/THR off, and appropriate instrument scan....

Agreed, different kettles.

The MPL is like a tailored high-school for RHS and given the high standardization of the training as well as its extent 'on type' and 'in equivalent environment' the end product meets the specification with sufficient margin. And mostly above average.

It's a good question how they are to broaden their experience to become wise commanders with enough lateral thinking. Yet that applies to every new pilot these days.

The only solution available is more carefully crafted SIM exercises togehter with an educative approach from Fleet, Standards and Training departments. Exactly what the MPL concept introduced over the integrated ATPL schemes. Including the continuous monitoring of skill development.

Perhaps the rest of the pilot pool could benefit from the same philosophy. Continuous monitoring of (essential skill) degradation?

It's hard to imagine 2x 140 MPL's flying into a PIA style crash. Equally hard as to accept there was no noticeable markers before that one in the PIC performance. Outside the FDM algorithms.

​​​

​​​





​​​​​

[double_barrel]

Interesting that as we slowly move to fully autonomous aircraft, we are simultaneously moving to rules-driven automata in the driving seat.

[Denti]

The only solution available is more carefully crafted SIM exercises togehter with an educative approach from Fleet, Standards and Training departments. Exactly what the MPL concept introduced over the integrated ATPL schemes. Including the continuous monitoring of skill development.

Perhaps the rest of the pilot pool could benefit from the same philosophy. Continuous monitoring of (essential skill) degradation?

It's hard to imagine 2x 140 MPL's flying into a PIA style crash. Equally hard as to accept there was no noticeable markers before that one in the PIC performance. Outside the FDM algorithms.
​​​​​

I believe that is exactly what Evidence Based Training (EBT) tries to solve. Continuous monitoring of pilot capability, both via fleet based FDM and of course in the simulator. Training to proficiency not meaning to only tick the boxes, but to reach real proficiency before releasing crew (back) to the line. In effect the continuation of the MPL training philosophy into the line flying segment. That might rattle some of us, but i think many of us who have a modicum of EBT already tried on us actually prefer it to the old tick the box style "training" and checking.

[Vokes55]

“ If you think flying a raw data, A/T off departure in a busy airspace with low level offs, tight turns, stepped climbs and speed restrictions somehow makes you a superior pilot, you’re wrong. It makes you a moron.”

Actually it does make you a superior pilot, It’s essentially what we did every day in military pilot training, You’d be surprised at how well you could do it too if you take your time, study the departure/ arrival and have done it dozens of times before. Like others have said, the correct level of automation, at the proper phase of flight is the best course.

No it doesn’t. We are talking about the airline world, not the military. Good CRM makes a good airline pilot, and if you think saying things like “in the military we did this” creates a positive crew environment, you’re mistaken. Quite frankly, if I’m sitting next to you in the flight deck of a passenger aircraft, I couldn’t give two hoots what you did in the military, as much as you couldn’t give two hoots about how many birdies I got on the golf course the day before. Oh, and the girls in the back aren’t interested either.


Flying ability aside what’s the general consensus on what these (usually) young MPL / Integrated FO’s are like to fly with as far as conversation is concerned?

A ex mil, legacy captain once told me that, in the main, their flying ability was usually very good however trying to make conversation at FL390 became a massive chore.

He said trying to chat with a 20 year kid who’s gone straight from college to a sausage factory school was a massive effort and made the cruise extremely boring. He was glad when he got an ex mil or an older FO with either previous flying experience or previous work experience to have a chat to.

Obviously we are paid to fly not to socialise but he had an interesting opinion.

This seems to be the issue. People assume that anybody who did an MPL or integrated course is fresh out of nappies. I was the youngest on my integrated course at 24. The oldest was 35. All of us had life experience, all of us could hold a conversation. But where in the ops manual does it say it’s the FO’s job to entertain the Captain? How do you know that some FO’s just aren’t interested in Maverick bleating on about his military days, or how many cars he has or his pension or that he’s lost money because the company share price has gone down? I fly with plenty of captains who can’t hold a conversation either, or who I simply have nothing in common with. And I’m certainly not there to massage somebody’s ego.

I’m not denying that some people are boring, introverted or have no life experience. But that applies to both seats, and goes back to the problem with people making first impressions based on how their colleague completed their training.

[Chiefttp]

Vokes55

Chip meet shoulder. Seriously, all I’m saying is, if you hand fly a complicated SID, on a regular basis, how can that not make you a better pilot as far as flying skill and confidence? I’m not saying to do it, and I agree with you in busy airspace it’s safer to let the autopilot fly it, but having the ability and the confidence to hand fly such a departure is an asset that most people would want their pilots to possess. I don’t know where your tangent about military trained pilots came from, but it sounds like you have an issue with some of them…sorry you feel that way. The military trains zero time pil9ts and one year later with a whopping 200 hrs total time, some of them are flying F-35’s. The reason they can do this is very rigorous selection, training, and lots of hand flying. CRM comes into play later. The original question posed on this thread was whether a pilot with 140 hrs can fly an Airbus, and the answer is yes, but only if they continue to train regularly, and at a higher rate than a 5000 hr pilot. If I were in management I’d require a 140 hr pilot to have one 2 hour sim per month for his. First 2 years. Practice V-1 cuts, engine out procedures, etc etc…to put a 140 hr pilot in an Airbus and let them engage the autopilot won’t allow them to build experience or confidence, despite having really, really, exceptional CRM skills….

[FlightDetent]

(cross-posted to with #82, reply to Vokes55 )

Easy on the wiser colleagues, man. Your passionate engagement may come across as being p(r)icky with the argument in some jurisdictions. It's natural for each of us to defend the way we have personally been trained, stay mindful it goes both ways.

Those skilled enough to be flying a raw data, A/T off departure in a busy airspace with low level offs, tight turns, stepped climbs and speed restrictions are superior pilots to those who cannot.

Nobody ever said it was a superior decision to self-train yourself for it in London, NYC or Beijing airspace, nor to be showing it off over there. On the contrary.

[N1EPR]

The current requirement to have 1500 hours is overboard. I and many of my peers started flying 4 engine piston aircraft with very little time. I had 500 hours, some of which was P51 (that was Parker 51). We all flew with patient Captains that enco8uraged us. Many would only let us use the autopilot at cruise altitude. None of us
had any problems and I feel 750 or 1000 hours would be plenty. Especially with the new simulators and airline training programs used today.

I agree with those that say hand fling to and from altitude is something that should be encouraged.

[Chiefttp]

N1EPR,
750-1000 (tel:750-1000) hrs worked fine until the Colgan Buffalo accident in 2009…then the knee jerk government reaction required 1500 hrs and an ATP to get a job at a Regional.

[Vokes55]

(cross-posted to with #82, reply to Vokes55 )
Those skilled enough to be are superior pilots to those who cannot.
.

Sorry but once again, who are you to say that somebody who did an MPL or integrated course can’t fly a complicated SID raw data? These baseless assumptions and tarring of nearly a whole generation of pilots is the bit I have an issue with.

I’m more than capable of hand flying an eastbound SID off 25 at Luton using raw data. Do I think it’s appropriate? No. Can I be bothered when it’s day 6 of earlies and I’ve had 4 hours of sleep? No. Do the people that pay my wages care that I didn’t hand fly that SID? No. Do the passengers that keep me in a job care? No. Does it have anything to do with whether I did an MPL course, an integrated course or 4000 hours crop spraying in Australia? No.


, but having the ability and the confidence to hand fly such a departure is an asset that most people would want their pilots to possess.

Most companies would want a pilot who knows when it is and isn’t appropriate to hand fly such a departure. And for most companies, the answer of when it’s appropriate would be “in the sim” and the answer of when it’s not would be “any other time”. As I said before, the appropriate use of automation is a matter of company policy for most airlines and is nothing to do with how somebody completed their initial training. The majority of us just want to have a good day out, keep a roof over our heads and food on the table and get our kicks elsewhere.

I have no problem with people with a military background, as long as you can leave your ego at the door and understand that it doesn’t say USAF on the side of your aircraft any more. Your war stories are as interesting (and relevant) to me as my golf stories are to you.

[flash8]

Sorry but once again, who are you to say that somebody who did an MPL or integrated course can’t fly a complicated SID raw data?Oh dear, the old self-improver vs integrated arguments of olde years. I thought we left that behind twenty years ago.

I wouldn't conflate Integrated with MPL though, the latter being more an efficient cost-cutting exercise for the airlines. Without glass and automation the MPL would never exist.

[Chiefttp]

Vokess55,

You wrote;
“The majority of us just want to have a good day out, keep a roof over our heads and food on the table and get our kicks elsewhere.”

I now see where your coming from…some people view Flying as a job, nothing more, Fly the Jet, get paid, go home….get your kicks elsewhere.
Others view the job as a passion, for some it’s a lifelong love of aviation, aircraft and everything associated with flying. I love hearing stories from military guys who’ve seen amazing things flying amazing aircraft..I also love hearing stories from pilots who took the general aviation path to the airlines like my Son, who is currently flying 777’s. Many of my friends own their own private aircraft, and some have built their own aircraft. Great pilots with interesting backgrounds and great stories.
To me and many others this profession is not, engage the autopilot, get vectors to a coupled ILS and don’t get in trouble or visit the Chief pilot, it’s something much more. it’s the difference between a Pilot, and an Aviator……to each his own, enjoy the links..

[PilotLZ]

Many opinions here are rather polarised. I don't think that it's a simple choice between "fly manually and on raw data at all times, no matter the conditions and the complexity of the airspace you're in" or "don't dare to ever disconnect the AT and FDs and keep the AP engaged anytime above 200 feet". My opinion is that you'll be much better off using some judgement as to when hand flying for exercise is appropriate and when it isn't. Probably every airline flies to some places where you can fly manually anytime below RVSM airspace, do raw data or visual approaches etc. Think regional airports which are usually not too busy, have no strict noise abatement routings and a relatively straightforward STAR/SID. Somewhere like that is a brilliant place to practise flying the aircraft (although, sadly, some colleagues still won't take the opportunity). However, a busy major airport isn't really the ideal place for it. It's not only about you as PF, it's also about making sure that your PM has an acceptable workload which allows him/her to actually monitor and provide the much-needed safety benefit of a second pair of eyes. So, instead of keeping the PM busy doing selections which you as PF could instead do yourself with the AP engaged, allow him/her to focus on the safety-critical part of their role - monitoring the flight path and calling out any deviations, ATC, checklists. Ultimately, you're there to take the aircraft from A to B in a safe and efficient way - and sometimes automation can be greatly beneficial to this. The acknowledgement of that has nothing to do with passion for flying or lack thereof, as mentioned above.

[pineteam]

Vokes, you nailed the problem yourself: « Company policy ». The same ones who blatantly ignore the manufacturer recommendations.. And if you think you or anyone else regardless they are MPL, or fighter pilots or 20 000 hours airline pilots that they can fly accurately raw data in challenging SID/STAR by practicing only in the sim; you will be surprised..By the way flying in the sim raw data is easier than the real aircraft. At least on A320 it’s definitely the case.
And as a passenger, I would not mind at all if on a nice day the pilots in front are flying raw data. On the contrary, I will feel more safe and I least know they care about their skills and they are actually enjoying the ride. Cause as a pilot, let’s be honest here, it’s much more fun than just following FD bars. And fun does not make you unprofessional. I really love flying; I would never take the risks to lose that amazing opportunity I have today to fly these planes by doing reckless flying. I actually feel sorry for the pilots who are upset to go to work. I’m excited to go flying every time. Yes some parts of the job are annoying but once those doors are closed, the excitement is there all the time. It’s actually hard for me to call it “work” or “job”.
I don’t want to be a passenger at the back stressing out if the guys are going to rotate before the end of the runway or crashing the plane into the ground cause the FD bars disappeared or the auto thrust failed. Oh and nothing makes me more cringe than pilots who engage AP just after airborne or disconnect the AP at minima in good weather.

By reading you, you seem to be a smart guy, I wish one day you can have a chance to work in an outfit where the policies are written by aviators. Maybe you will see things differently.
That would be my last post on this one. Enough off topic from my side. Happy flying everyone.

[vilas]

Sorry but once again, who are you to say that somebody who did an MPL or integrated course can’t fly a complicated SID raw data? These baseless assumptions and tarring of nearly a whole generation of pilots is the bit I have an issue with.

I’m more than capable of hand flying an eastbound SID off 25 at Luton using raw data. Do I think it’s appropriate? No. Can I be bothered when it’s day 6 of earlies and I’ve had 4 hours of sleep? No. Do the people that pay my wages care that I didn’t hand fly that SID? No. Do the passengers that keep me in a job care? No. Does it have anything to do with whether I did an MPL course, an integrated course or 4000 hours crop spraying in Australia? No.




Most companies would want a pilot who knows when it is and isn’t appropriate to hand fly such a departure. And for most companies, the answer of when it’s appropriate would be “in the sim” and the answer of when it’s not would be “any other time”. As I said before, the appropriate use of automation is a matter of company policy for most airlines and is nothing to do with how somebody completed their initial training. The majority of us just want to have a good day out, keep a roof over our heads and food on the table and get our kicks elsewhere.

I have no problem with people with a military background, as long as you can leave your ego at the door and understand that it doesn’t say USAF on the side of your aircraft any more. Your war stories are as interesting (and relevant) to me as my golf stories are to you.
I agree with the realism in your argument. Being a pilot is like any another profession. Only Passion alone doesn't necessarily make one better. There are many who play sport very passionately and yet remain mediocre at best. Commercial flying is a business to make money by transporting people safely. When it stops doing that even the best pilot goes home. These are not exactly training flights and to have an incident/accident practicing something fancy because one's passion is simply not acceptable. Most flights should use automation that's what it's designed for and gives consistent results. Hand flying should be used to keep the capability to do so when required. That doesn't require every departure or every arrival to be manually flown. This is not a personal toy and airline must have policies in this regard.

[Joe le Taxi]

Pineteam, you really need to take heed - like it or not, the incident rate when pilots try and fly raw data is very much increased - and even hand flying might well be inappropriate in busy or complicated departures and arrivals. Great that you get kicks from flying still, but your workplace with several hundred paying customers is not the place to indulge your kicks. Get an aviation related hobby to do that - aero's, gliding, etc - they almost always make a good pair of hands, who find the transition to transport jets very natural.

[Vokes55]

Vokess55,

You wrote;
“The majority of us just want to have a good day out, keep a roof over our heads and food on the table and get our kicks elsewhere.”

I now see where your coming from…some people view Flying as a job, nothing more, Fly the Jet, get paid, go home….get your kicks elsewhere.
Others view the job as a passion, for some it’s a lifelong love of aviation, aircraft and everything associated with flying. I love hearing stories from military guys who’ve seen amazing things flying amazing aircraft..I also love hearing stories from pilots who took the general aviation path to the airlines like my Son, who is currently flying 777’s. Many of my friends own their own private aircraft, and some have built their own aircraft. Great pilots with interesting backgrounds and great stories.
To me and many others this profession is not, engage the autopilot, get vectors to a coupled ILS and don’t get in trouble or visit the Chief pilot, it’s something much more. it’s the difference between a Pilot, and an Aviator……to each his own, enjoy the links..

I don’t disagree with what you say, except that most pilots will find themselves somewhere in the middle. I love my job, but I also want to be able to do it for another 30 years. I love the lifestyle (the last two years aside) it allows me to lead. But I also love to keep my stress levels low enough to allow me to reach retirement alive. Times have changed. Radar almost everywhere, FDM, FTLs stretched to their limits, everyone having a camera. Every mistake is going to be picked up and every action scrutinised. If I level bust in London airspace on a departure trying to intercept a VOR radial, the first question I’m going to be asked is why weren’t I using the AFDS system? The answer of “well I just love being an aviator” simply isn’t going to cut it. In my airline it would probably land me in the simulator with a black mark next to my name, possibly for the rest of my career. In others, it would almost certainly be a week to pack your belongings and get out of the country.

Whether or not you agree with the way people are trained, the path they take, the magenta line etc is something you’d need to ask the airlines, not the new pilots simply taking the path that will open the most doors to them. All I’d say is look at the connoisseurs of low hour cadet hiring - Ryanair, Wizzair and easyJet - and count the number of hull losses they’ve had over the past 20 years.

[Less Hair]

They fly many short sectors, many to only basic equipped fields and their pilots get a lot of stick time and experience fast. While they are strictly ops regulated wouldn't this be more one of the old world models?

[RichardJones]

I think we can take it as read, flying skills have gone out the window now. The youngsters with low hours can operate the automatics far better and quicker than I ever could. You can take a 16 year old, or younger out of an amusement parlor and they could be taught to operate the automatics of an a/c far quicker than us dinosaurs. A chief pilot of a national carrier told me 20 years ago, "flying skills are well down the list of priorities for us as far as selection goes". I knew we were in trouble then.
However as for handling an a/c in manual, that is a different story.
Take crosswind landings for eg., who nowadays can pull off a landing at max xwind, touching down, on the centre line, when the heading, track of the a/c and R/W heading are the same. Not very many these days I suspect.. If we are unable we don't have full control of the A/C. Or do we? Surely that is what we all desire and strive for, or is it just throwing the a/c at the runway the aim?
This is the reality guys, get used to it. You can teach automatics in a class room/simulator. Flying skills, don't come that easy.

[Chiefttp]

So could we all agree that it is possible to train a 140 hour Pilot to fly an Airbus safely? In my perfect world, I’d like to see these low hour pilots receive extra training, at least for their first 2 years, in the form of a monthly simulator session to let them practice V-1 cuts, raw data approaches, and other skills in an non retribution environment. These sim sessions would be pure training and practice. This would allow them to gain experience and confidence while not exposing paying passengers to possible incidents. My airline offers such a program to pilots who request it, regardless of rank or experience. You can request a sim session every 6 months for pilot proficiency. Get in the simulator and basically practice anything you’d like for a few hours.

[hec7or]

I believe the blue and yellow company allow their pilots free use of their fixed base training devices which I'm told are exactly like the full motion sim but without the motion.

[rudestuff]

In my perfect world, I’d like to see these low hour pilots receive extra training, at least for their first 2 years, in the form of a monthly simulator session to let them practice V-1 cuts, raw data approaches, and other skills... ...allow them to gain experience and confidence while not exposing paying passengers to possible incidents.
You realise that they're not just putting a 140 hour pilot in an Airbus, right? They get a full type rating - in fact these guys will do a lot more SIM sessions than the rest of us and should therefore be more proficient than we were going from single pilot to multi pilot.

[Chiefttp]

Rudestuff,
Generally I’m familiar with the concept of these programs. Can anyone explain the process and how many hours from start to finish (type rating) until a candidate flies in the right seat of an airliner.

[PilotLZ]

Rudestuff,
Generally I’m familiar with the concept of these programs. Can anyone explain the process and how many hours from start to finish (type rating) until a candidate flies in the right seat of an airliner.
A type rating course usually features no less than nine four-hour sessions in the FFS. However, the exact number can vary depending on a few things. First, there are usually some fixed-base sessions which are considered part of the theoretical training and are done either in a classroom FBS, in a touch-screen FTD or in the FFS cockpit with the motion disabled, depending on what sort of equipment is available in the training centre. Second, company conversion training may be integrated into the training programme or may come as a couple of standalone sessions after the type rating (usually one or two training sessions and one for the OPC). Low visibility training usually also comes as a standalone session. So, you won't be too far off if you assume that a cadet FO coming in for their first flight in the real aircraft has had at least 40 hours in the FFS with all the bells and whistles plus some hours in a lower-level training device before that.

As for being able to book extra sim sessions at the company's expense to maintain proficiency in non-normal situations - I am all in for that. Sadly, not many airlines out there have the resources to afford that and the willingness to spend the money this way even if they have it. Most tend to go with the minimum legally required number of training hours.

[rudestuff]

The MPL requires 240 hours total, spilt between AC and SIM. A typical course will have at least 100 hours of simulator flying. This broadly matches what a regular CPL Cadet will have flown, but with double the emphasis on multi pilot operations. Hence why airlines consider it a better 'product'.

Basically, take your average CPL, take away 50 hours of unsupervised Cessna 'hour building' and instead give them an extra 50 hours of multi crew SIM flying to airline SOPs (on top of their type rating). Are they a worse Cessna pilot or are they significantly better equipped to fly a jet?

[FlightDetent]

Sure they are, repeated many times.

The MPLs have around the same flighthours as an ab-inition trainee, except a large dose of those is synthetic. Sitting into the real RHS the first time, they have around 80 hrs more 'on-type' than any other new, freshly rated pilot. I know where I'd put my money, and that also includes raw data ILS to CAT I minima with 25 xwc (no FPV), emergency descent and dual AC bus lost.

The only mystery is why Vokes above repeatedly gets offended and starts throwing insults around for us calling him raw data hand flying non-proficient. Which nobody did, not to him nor to the MPL group in general, anywhere throughout the course of the thread. Opposite was implied instead.

[Check Airman]

To play devil's advocate as an outsider to this world......Isn't that telling us that (most/all?) companies have decided that they would rather have pilots who use the automation effectively than pilots who know how to hand fly? When you feel that you want to build-up your experience doing something or other because it increases your confidence, adaptability, and ultimately safety, but you are prevented from doing that by company rules with draconian consequences, something has to be wrong. I suspect that the company policy is based on hard statistics showing that pilots make more errors than aircraft systems, and that fully understanding and using aircraft systems is the core of the job. When I look at accident reports, the proximate cause is almost always a crew who configured their systems wrongly for what they were trying to do, often with the systems working perfectly, sometimes with confusion resulting from a simple single hardware failure that was poorly handled. The catastrophic failures rescued by brilliant stick and rudder skills are vanishingly rare.

That’s because most of the time the automation does something stupid, we just turn it off and fix it with some stick and rudder skills. The reports you read are the crews who didn’t do that. The A320 AP is pretty nice, but I’ve seen it do some stupid things.

[safetypee]

It is feasible to train a pilot to fly a passenger aircraft in a ‘few’ hours.
‘Safely’ depends on what is considered; point of view, context, open to corruption by our thoughts and experiences.
Operating an aircraft safely is a crew activity.

A low hours pilot is quite able to operate as a crew member; as a Captain - no, because of limited operational experience.
As single crew in the event of Captain incapacitation (check statistics); revert to basic flying tasks of recovering and landing, accepting a lower standard of safety (as with abnormal / emergency operation) - safe for the extreme remoteness of encountering the situation … on the first flight … without …, or any other combinations of incredulous system failures or weather conditions we dream up.

Use the autos, do the same as in previous flights / training.

‘That’s because most of the time the automation does something stupid, - evidence?
More often the pilot requests something which autos do not understand; - not trained for?

[hec7or]

A very good source in the UK CAA once told me that British Airways had done a trial back in the late 80s early 90s where they had put a course of sponsored cadets through a B757 type rating before completing the CPL/IR in an effort to persuade the CAA that the light aircraft time was unnecessary. Their case was that the Cadets all passed the 1179/IR with no noticeable difference compared to the CPL/IR candidates.
The CAA were not persuaded.

[rudestuff]

There is certainly and argument that training to operate a 2 pilot jet is quite different from a single pilot piston. So much so that an extra course - the MCC - was introduced to help bridge the gap. Clearly there are single pilot traits that do not transpose well, and anecdotal evidence to suggest that too much single pilot time could make someone harder to train multi pilot. The MPL is designed with MP operations in mind from the get-go, and the stick and rudder argument is less of an issue when the other guy has 3-4,000 hours. Yes, a brand new MPL could find themselves single pilot thanks to a dodgy fish course, but that would almost always result in a diversion to the nearest airport with vectors and probably an automatic landing - arguably one of the simpler emergencies. It could also happen to a brand new CPL (with half the SIM experience).

[Check Airman]

It is feasible to train a pilot to fly a passenger aircraft in a ‘few’ hours.
‘Safely’ depends on what is considered; point of view, context, open to corruption by our thoughts and experiences.
Operating an aircraft safely is a crew activity.

A low hours pilot is quite able to operate as a crew member; as a Captain - no, because of limited operational experience.
As single crew in the event of Captain incapacitation (check statistics); revert to basic flying tasks of recovering and landing, accepting a lower standard of safety (as with abnormal / emergency operation) - safe for the extreme remoteness of encountering the situation … on the first flight … without …, or any other combinations of incredulous system failures or weather conditions we dream up.

Use the autos, do the same as in previous flights / training.

‘That’s because most of the time the automation does something stupid, - evidence?
More often the pilot requests something which autos do not understand; - not trained for?

Evidence? I’m no more inclined to document it than you were the last time you had to swerve to avoid a collision while driving. Sure, sometimes we make mistakes. The plane makes mistakes too. Push the red button, try to reset the system, then re-engage the automation if appropriate.

That’s never happened to you?

[Consol]

Similar to what I have posted earlier in this thread, how do you expect an airline to hire new pilots in a country with little GA or mil, Singapore and the likes? Right seat of a jet will probably have not many hours. Train them well, keep training them and encourage them to hand fly when it is sensible (not on a stepped descent, speed controlled STAR). Most are very keen flyers who are often reluctant to disconnect the AP due nervous left seat who wants to fly the fdm. I hand fly more than most, some FOs cop on and realize they can do a bit as a result. Some say they'll engage the AP immediately after take off and I look at the often CAVOK conditions and ask why.
Remember, left seat sets the tone.

[Chiefttp]

Consol,
You hit the nail on the head….the left seat sets the tone.

Back in my AF days I was what we called a “first pilot”, which was an intermediate position between a Co-Pilot and an Aircraft Commander (AC ,same as civilian Captain). I was paired with an AC to fly a C-141 mission from the States to Europe, Turkey, it was a 7 day mission. As I set up the cockpit, the AC told me to sit in the left seat and stay there for the duration of the mission. Up until that point I had little experience taxiing the aircraft or running a mission. After those 30 hours of running an actual mission from the left seat, my confidence soared and any anxiety I had about flying in the left seat disappeared. I’ll always be thankful to him for allowing me that opportunity.

[Joe le Taxi]

Maybe, maybe not. But it's beside the point. Recent major accidents and incidents have involved perfectly serviceable crew and aircraft deviating from sensible attitude and power for the stage of flight (and when that's been the FO as PF, a weak Captain has often been the final hole in the Swiss cheese). Personally I don't think hand flying slavishly glued to the flight director proves, or improves, anything much - and if anything, reinforces FD tunnel vision whilst entrusting the possibly erroneous path to something or someone else,, rather than manoeuvring to a sensible attitude and power - and sort out the FD when time allows... An instinctive feel for when attitude and power have gone awry DOES come with a diverse aviation experience, particularly from VFR pure visual flying, and I would concede - with raw data flying, but how to expose new pilots to this without increasing"busts" or increasing PMs work/error load, is a tricky one. I believe inexperienced FO voluntary take-up of free FB sim sessions has been pretty low. I do remember when BA and Britannia had Cherokees which employees could fly - that would be a start. And the 1980s pilot hiring teams which went trawling round flying and gliding clubs, looking for new FOs. So maybe pilot hiring does have to put demonstrable pilot aptitude, air-mindedness and proven aviation interest at the top of the list, and spotty "programmable human automatons" at the bottom (and the former also makes for much more interesting company during a 12 hour day)!. Twenty years ago, it's was usual to be sitting with someone who had a visual stick and rudder, or ultra basic IFR air taxi type, aviation background of some sort (I include military in that) - now it's about one in ten FOs, if that.

[Denti]

Twenty years ago, it's was usual to be sitting with someone who had a visual stick and rudder, or ultra basic IFR air taxi type, aviation background of some sort (I include military in that) - now it's about one in ten FOs, if that.

That is, however, an incredibly bad argument, as twenty years ago (by the way, most european pilots were abinitio trained ones as well at that time) the accident rate was higher, while the airplanes we flew were the same. After all, the 737NG was already the mainstay, as was the A320 family.

[Joe le Taxi]

I certainly don't recall the same constant stream of accidents resulting from pilots who simply didn't know the basics of controlling an aeroplane. (Besides, since 20-25 years, aircraft are crammed with safety devices, such as egpws, TCAS, RAAS, etc which have enhanced safety along with almost universal precision approaches. Actually most 737s were classics at that time, and there were a hell of a lot of early gen types still operating on those days, so I think your argumentt is incredibly poor;) , and certainly in my early airlines, most captains were ex-services and FOs the same, or ex air taxi or basic TP. I guess national carriers were increasingly ab initio at that time. Prior to that, eg Hamble was very heavy on flying skills, with a hefty chop rate. Nowadays, if a youngster has the money, no matter how clueless they are, they will find a seat on an airliner somewhere.

[Airmann]

I feel the biggest issue is not whether a cadet gets on a jet at 200/250 hours but what happens after that. Many spend the rest of their time in the right seat with autopilot on. They don't partake in flight planning, and now a days performance means typing numbers into a computer and pressing enter. ​​​​​​​ Basically, the fact that things have got so easy means that there's no chance to build up experience or a deep understanding of what is going on around you. In the coming years we will have captains that have never filed a flight plan, done a manual load sheet or ever had to look at charts to do a performance calculation (other than in their first 200 hours in flight school). But Airbus has the solution: pilotless aircraft.

[dr dre]

and certainly in my early airlines, most captains were ex-services and FOs the same, or ex air taxi or basic TP.

That's not a recipe for victory. The crew who put AA 965 into the hills near Cali were ex USAF, Vietnam experienced Captain. AA1420 overrun in Little Rock was an ex USAF and USN crew. Could go on and on....

On the other hand from what I can see the crew who saved BA38 were all flying jet airliners straight after initial training. The Ural Air 178 crew were both ab initio, only had time in the 320 post basic training. The Captain of Ural 178 had only 3000 hours in total. Some would consider that far too little to sit in the right hand seat of a jet, let alone the left, yet he was there and did a fantastic job.

In fact it could be said as piloting has gone from the ex WW2 era where most airline pilots were ex military, to the current days where they are mostly the product of ab initio schemes the level of safety has improved.

[double_barrel]

One of the saddest aspects of the ET 737-Max crash was that the very young F/O (25 years old, 361 flight hours, 207 hours on the 737) got it right. He made the correct call to disable MCAS.

[RichardJones]

One of the saddest aspects of the ET 737-Max crash was that the very young F/O (25 years old, 361 flight hours, 207 hours on the 737) got it right. He made the correct call to disable MCAS.

Indeed. If the PF, is not happy with the A/P, or any system performance, it should be considered as an "incapacitation". Therefore take it out of the loop.
However I sense there is great reluctance nowadays to disable the the automatics and go manual.
The best practice for manual flying, is to hand fly the aircraft at altitude, raw data.. Great practice as it sharpens the scan and increased the use of IVSI, as it should. If you are able to fly at altitude, you are equipped to fly most scenarios with a good degree of accuracy. However it is discouraged now of course, RVSM, passenger comfort, fuel economy, loading up the PNF, etc. When we flew cargo we had ample opportunity to practice. What with, u/s A/P's, and no other restrictions and 3 cockpit crew.. That gave the P/F the confidence to take over manual control when or if necessary.
Years ago in Asia, a line check was being conducted. On the approach, the check pilot pulled the A/P CB. He shouldn't have done perhaps, but he did. The P/F was taken by surprise to the extent, there was a major screw up.

[vilas]

However I sense there is great reluctance nowadays to disable the the automatics and go manual.
The best practice for manual flying, is to hand fly the aircraft at altitude, raw data.. Great practice as it sharpens the scan and increased the use of IVSI, as it should. If you are able to fly at altitude, you are equipped to fly most scenarios with a good degree of accuracy. However it is discouraged now of course, RVSM, passenger comfort, fuel economy, loading up the PNF, etc. When we flew cargo we had ample opportunity to practice. What with, u/s A/P's, and no other restrictions and 3 cockpit crew.. That gave the P/F the confidence to take over manual control when or if necessary.
The pilots were flying manually. MCAS only works when manually flying.

[hans brinker]

The pilots were flying manually. MCAS only works when manually flying.

The main reason they were flying manual, was because they couldn't get the AP to engage, because they were out of trim, and applying force to the control column. There's multiple B737 crashes where the PF is frantically asking for the AP because they lost the plot, but it won't because they're still pulling/pushing. It is exactly those accidents that absolutely, without doubt prove we don't hand fly enough. I had an engine failure just after TOD as PM (flame out, no other problem), and my partner went AP off as soon as we got the alert. I assessed the situation, and re-engaged it, because there's definitely a time to be AP on. Asking for the AP when you don't know what is going on is not good.

[Check Airman]

The main reason they were flying manual, was because they couldn't get the AP to engage, because they were out of trim, and applying force to the control column. There's multiple B737 crashes where the PF is frantically asking for the AP because they lost the plot, but it won't because they're still pulling/pushing. It is exactly those accidents that absolutely, without doubt prove we don't hand fly enough. I had an engine failure just after TOD as PM (flame out, no other problem), and my partner went AP off as soon as we got the alert. I assessed the situation, and re-engaged it, because there's definitely a time to be AP on. Asking for the AP when you don't know what is going on is not good.
:D

"You never connect an AP to a suspected faulty flight instrument or control"

I learned that on my first transport jet course. I still haven't forgot those words.

[prickly]

Why? They've passed a type rating test to the authorities' satisfaction. They're flying multi-crew, they've had their safety pilot released and it's the only type they know so there's no bad/old habits to revert to.
Yeah, well just saw the Air Arabia A320 story out of Sharjah. F/o, 160 hours on type, 160 hours total time under line training. Check it out on Mentour Pilot website, its unbelievable especially from the training captain.

[sekmeth]

Yeah, well just saw the Air Arabia A320 story out of Sharjah. F/o, 160 hours on type, 160 hours total time under line training. Check it out on Mentour Pilot website, its unbelievable especially from the training captain.
If a FO needs 160hrs of LIFUS, that is more of a problem then good, motivated FOs with 140hrs total.

[Busdriver01]

A number of reasons including that they do not have the ability to fly the aircraft to its full capability , in particular up to the max crosswind and they have no knowledge of the airfields and airspace they are operating in.

You don't actually believe this do you? How would flying a cranky old MEP around the UK from aerodrome to aerodrome provide experience of operating into LHR, AMS, CDG, or joining a tango route, or...(etc, etc,etc). I appreciate there's a certain amount of experience to be gained by doing actual solo flying (I definitely learned a thing or two in a C152 thinking 'oh Sh!T, not sure what to do now!') but let's not pretend airfield or airspace knowledge/experience is something you miss out on if you do an MPL

(I didn't do an MPL, just advocating that they're not as bad as everyone seems to say they are).

[TooLowFlap]

I did my ab initio training more than 20 years ago. "Frozen ATPL" (CPL IR, ATPL theory and Long Range). Some hours in the US in a Piper PA28 and a Beech F33. Than back to Europe accumulating hours in the Piper PA42 to get used to European weather and familiarize with a few airports. If memory serves me well, I was in the right hand seat with 274 hours total time, when doeing the base check in a narrowbody jet (min 15 landings back than). Some of us even went straight on a widebody (but in short to medium haul operation).

Line training...150 hours standard, again, if memory serves me well.

My first passenger flight as PF was into FRA. We were given vectors to leave a hold on a CAVOC day. The Training Captain said, manual flight could be fun. AP off, A/THR off (standard procedure!), my FD off...

In my opinion, flight training does not end with getting the license or the rating. Captains, like my first training captain, that encourage young pilots to get experience and improve their skills - while making sure to keep things on the safe side - are the key to transfer experience. I do not say, that 1.000 hours single engine C172 are useless, but I think that 150 hours line training with a honest and empowering debriefing might be as valuable.

[tubby linton]

You don't actually believe this do you? How would flying a cranky old MEP around the UK from aerodrome to aerodrome provide experience of operating into LHR, AMS, CDG, or joining a tango route, or...(etc, etc,etc). I appreciate there's a certain amount of experience to be gained by doing actual solo flying (I definitely learned a thing or two in a C152 thinking 'oh Sh!T, not sure what to do now!') but let's not pretend airfield or airspace knowledge/experience is something you miss out on if you do an MPL

(I didn't do an MPL, just advocating that they're not as bad as everyone seems to say they are).
I do believe it and that is based upon flying a very basic turboprop into many major airports around Europe at the start of my career plus in later years teaching the A320 to cadets. Flying the turboprop with no flight directors into 30kt crosswind fog into Guernsey at the end of a multisector night or taking the same aircraft into LHR into the rush hour did teach me a few things.Trying to fly it and with your other hand depressurise it took a certain skill, but now I am falling into the old git recounting his memoirs trap.

[Retired DC9 driver]

Indeed. If the PF, is not happy with the A/P, or any system performance, it should be considered as an "incapacitation". Therefore take it out of the loop.
However I sense there is great reluctance nowadays to disable the the automatics and go manual.
The best practice for manual flying, is to hand fly the aircraft at altitude, raw data.. Great practice as it sharpens the scan and increased the use of IVSI, as it should. If you are able to fly at altitude, you are equipped to fly most scenarios with a good degree of accuracy. However it is discouraged now of course, RVSM, passenger comfort, fuel economy, loading up the PNF, etc. When we flew cargo we had ample opportunity to practice. What with, u/s A/P's, and no other restrictions and 3 cockpit crew.. That gave the P/F the confidence to take over manual control when or if necessary.
Years ago in Asia, a line check was being conducted. On the approach, the check pilot pulled the A/P CB. He shouldn't have done perhaps, but he did. The P/F was taken by surprise to the extent, there was a major screw up.

That was when, as a Second Officer, on the B-727, I would offer to hand fly the aircraft, on a long trans-con leg, if the A/P was U/S. Later I would ask the Flight Attendants , how the ride was in the back. If I had hand flown it smoothly enough, they wouldn't notice the A/P was off.
Back to previous discussion, I spent years, as F/O later Captain on DC9-32 aircraft. The only time we had the autopilot on was at cruise altitude. Descents, climbs and approaches were all hand flown, even to 200 ' ceilings. We did have good V-bar F/D for hand flown coupled approaches. Busy terminals, like LGA, ORD, ATL, EWR. No A/T.

Next aircraft, B-767-200, flying out of Barbados, late at night,climbed to 410 to clear a line of weather. I was PF, when suddenly one engine rolled back, and started to surge. First thing I did was disconnect A/T A/P, pitch down 2 degree below horizon, as Engine Out page came up. 217 knots. No way I would slow back that far. Hand flew , descending around cells until we got low enough that surging engine recovered. EGT hadn't climbed so no shut down required.
So when bad things happen, you revert back to your previous aircraft. In my case the DC-9; I was more comfortable hand flying, while the Captain did the QRH drill...

[hans brinker]

That was when, as a Second Officer, on the B-727, I would offer to hand fly the aircraft, on a long trans-con leg, if the A/P was U/S. Later I would ask the Flight Attendants , how the ride was in the back. If I had hand flown it smoothly enough, they wouldn't notice the A/P was off.
Back to previous discussion, I spent years, as F/O later Captain on DC9-32 aircraft. The only time we had the autopilot on was at cruise altitude. Descents, climbs and approaches were all hand flown, even to 200 ' ceilings. We did have good V-bar F/D for hand flown coupled approaches. Busy terminals, like LGA, ORD, ATL, EWR. No A/T.

Next aircraft, B-767-200, flying out of Barbados, late at night,climbed to 410 to clear a line of weather. I was PF, when suddenly one engine rolled back, and started to surge. First thing I did was disconnect A/T A/P, pitch down 2 degree below horizon, as Engine Out page came up. 217 knots. No way I would slow back that far. Hand flew , descending around cells until we got low enough that surging engine recovered. EGT hadn't climbed so no shut down required.
So when bad things happen, you revert back to your previous aircraft. In my case the DC-9; I was more comfortable hand flying, while the Captain did the QRH drill...

I agree with selecting the AT OFF, because you have an engine issue. You would have helped the captain a lot more if you would have kept the AP on, and flown in HDG/FLC or whatever team B uses. Had a flameout at FL430 in the descend, my colleague immediately disconnected everything. I looked at the situation, looked like a flameout without damage, we were descending on an RNAV arrival. I just re-engaged the AP, because there was no need to add extra workload at that point. Currently flying the A320, and land without AP/FD/AT 90% of the time. When the $#!t hits the fan, keep the automation on, as long as the problem is not related to that part of the automation.

[Check Airman]

I did my ab initio training more than 20 years ago. "Frozen ATPL" (CPL IR, ATPL theory and Long Range). Some hours in the US in a Piper PA28 and a Beech F33. Than back to Europe accumulating hours in the Piper PA42 to get used to European weather and familiarize with a few airports. If memory serves me well, I was in the right hand seat with 274 hours total time, when doeing the base check in a narrowbody jet (min 15 landings back than). Some of us even went straight on a widebody (but in short to medium haul operation).

Line training...150 hours standard, again, if memory serves me well.

My first passenger flight as PF was into FRA. We were given vectors to leave a hold on a CAVOC day. The Training Captain said, manual flight could be fun. AP off, A/THR off (standard procedure!), my FD off...

In my opinion, flight training does not end with getting the license or the rating. Captains, like my first training captain, that encourage young pilots to get experience and improve their skills - while making sure to keep things on the safe side - are the key to transfer experience. I do not say, that 1.000 hours single engine C172 are useless, but I think that 150 hours line training with a honest and empowering debriefing might be as valuable.

Maybe there's something to be said for 150 hrs of line training. Here, the standard is 25 or 15 hours. You'll be fired long before getting to 150 hours.

[Scagrams]

Maybe there's something to be said for 150 hrs of line training. Here, the standard is 25 or 15 hours. You'll be fired long before getting to 150 hours.

It has to be adapted to previous experience etc. Someone coming from previous airline experience with few thousands hours even if not on jet aircraft will not need the same training as an out of flight school pilot or even a few hundred hours as instructor

[Retired DC9 driver]

I agree with selecting the AT OFF, because you have an engine issue. You would have helped the captain a lot more if you would have kept the AP on, and flown in HDG/FLC or whatever team B uses. Had a flameout at FL430 in the descend, my colleague immediately disconnected everything. I looked at the situation, looked like a flameout without damage, we were descending on an RNAV arrival. I just re-engaged the AP, because there was no need to add extra workload at that point. Currently flying the A320, and land without AP/FD/AT 90% of the time. When the $#!t hits the fan, keep the automation on, as long as the problem is not related to that part of the automation.
Well I was maneuvering around some nasty looking cells, as we descended, so I figured it was easier to hand fly, keep up some speed for turbulence. The bad engine was surging, so I wanted my feet on the rudders with the thrust changes; never dialed in any rudder trim. We were well out over the water, in the "Bermuda Triangle" so no crossing restrictions to meet.

I would later fly the 319/320/321 for quite a few years as Captain. Often fly it with AP/FD off, but the A/T is pretty useful ! Many approaches I did , required "A/P off, F/Ds off, Speed Push", then hand fly. Such as Expressway Visual, LGA or Quiet Bridge into LAX from the North. Later a slam-dunk..

[TooLowFlap]

I would later fly the 319/320/321 for quite a few years as Captain. Often fly it with AP/FD off, but the A/T is pretty useful ! Many approaches I did , required "A/P off, F/Ds off, Speed Push", then hand fly.

Some airlines do not allow to fly with the A/THR in Speed-mode while the A/P is not engaged. Lufthansa Passage / Cargo went this way. The training department had the opinion, that the use of A/T(HR) while handflying has a negative effect on (scanning-) skills. I tend to agree on that one.

We have a thread on that topic in tech log. However, I am not allowed to post links yet.

[pineteam]

Some airlines do not allow to fly with the A/THR in Speed-mode while the A/P is not engaged. Lufthansa Passage / Cargo went this way. The training department had the opinion, that the use of A/T(HR) while handflying has a negative effect on (scanning-) skills. I tend to agree on that one.

We have a thread on that topic in tech log. However, I am not allowed to post links yet.

Wow, that's odd. The scanning skills are required all the time regardless of the A/THR status and it's flying with full automation that these skills will deteriorate the fastest IMHO. I believe flying with FDs off and A/THR off is very easy and safe; As on Airbus it will be always in speed mode whatever you do. That's why we switch off the FDs during a RA manoeuvre. When I first started flying with FDs OFF, I always flew with A/THR ON to first make myself at ease with the pitch and tracking the Loc and glide during approach. Then after when I was comfortable I started disconnecting the A/THR. In my opinion the least safe think to do as a new pilot on type is to fly FDs ON and A/THR OFF during climb and descent as you have to anticipate what the A/THR would be doing if it was engaged.

[FlightDetent]

Put it this way: Unlike on conventional types with pronounced pitch-power couple, very few airlines insist to have the A/thr OFF during manual flight for FBW Airbii.

[pineteam]

I did not pay attention but I’m assuming TooLowFlap was talking about Boeing Most likely. I know one airline flying older 737 by SOP if you turn off AP you must turn off the Auto-throttle.

[vilas]

Put it this way: Unlike on conventional types with pronounced pitch-power couple, very few airlines insist to have the A/thr OFF during manual flight for FBW Airbii.
That's because Airbus is flight path stable so the computer resists any pitch that is not coming from the stick. So whether thrust couple or speed increase/decrease the aircraft maintains 1g path. However direct law that's not the case because it degrades to conventional speed stable. That's why in direct law manual thrust is recommended.

[TooLowFlap]

Actually, this rule (not to use speed mode with the autopilot off) was introduced in the OM-A way back in the 1990s, if memory serves me well. As the OM-A was binding for all operations, it became applicable for Airbus / Boeing / MD fleets (A306 / A310, A319-321, A330 / A340 AND B733-735, B742, B744, MD11).



Back to topic: I recently watched a YouTube-video. An ab initio pilot of an unknown airline had to do his “base check” (flying touch & go in the actual aircraft after completing the Type Rating). They flew the pattern with A/THR…

I am afraid that these pilots use manual thrust for the first time, when they have problems with the airspeed indicator (for example), which might not be the best time to train speed control / pitch & power and so on.

[FlightDetent]

Historically DLH never seemed to have problems with cadet-grown pilots, guess they must be doing something right. Although the F/Os don't taxi, IIRC.

(one God forsaken soul does not alter that)

​​​​​

[Check Airman]

I am afraid that these pilots use manual thrust for the first time, when they have problems with the airspeed indicator (for example), which might not be the best time to train speed control / pitch & power and so on.

The first time I flew the A320 without AT, it was quite a ride. With a bit of repetition, it becomes a lot easier though, and I’d say is my normal landing configuration.

[pineteam]

The first time I flew the A320 without AT, it was quite a ride. With a bit of repetition, it becomes a lot easier though, and I’d say is my normal landing configuration.
Agreed 100%. Same for me.

[Check Airman]

It has to be adapted to previous experience etc. Someone coming from previous airline experience with few thousands hours even if not on jet aircraft will not need the same training as an out of flight school pilot or even a few hundred hours as instructor

I don’t disagree with you, but whether you’ve flown the same type for a different airline, or just came from pistons, you get 25 hrs.

(I’m told that some regionals have recently increased to ~40 hrs of line training. I’d assume this has to do with the decreased experience of new first officers. It’s quite a challenge for my friends who are captains)

[OSDriver]

The first time I flew the A320 without AT, it was quite a ride. With a bit of repetition, it becomes a lot easier though, and I’d say is my normal landing configuration.

The first time i flew the A320 (raw data) with AT on was quite a ride. Manual flight - manual thrust was the norm, both in training and on the line in the airline where i transitioned from Boeing to Airbus. That said, nowadays manual thrust is all but forbidden, as is AP/FD off for TCAS as the automatic TCAS mode does it better anyway.

[FlyingStone]

@Check Airman:

Not sure if pilots you hire are Chuck Yeager's relatives or your standards are lower, but I can't imagine many people who could successfully to from zero airline experience to being able to competently operate a jet to the standard we require on the line in 25 hours (unless those would be sub 1h flight times) - at least where I work.

Pilots new to airline flying are usually drinking out of a firehose, as everything is new to them. From check in, weight and balance, paperwork, PAs, etc. - let alone flying an aircraft 40 times heavier what they previously flew. And there's so many things to cover, Cat 2/3 approaches, NPAs with various levels of automation, manual flying, etc.

Seasoned captains with experience on type? Sure, couple of days so they get used to the different papers and checklists, and off they go. New first officers whose last aircraft was C172? No way.

[rudestuff]

That's got to be 25 sectors surely?

[Check Airman]

25 hours. Not sectors.

Some people would have come to their first jet from light pistons, and others from turboprops. We do the same training. I’m not sure how many landings or sectors are required, but am absolutely positive on the hour requirement.

After your first 25ish hours, your line training is considered complete (as long as you’re demonstrating competency, of course). You’re then release to fly with regular line captains, with a few restrictions on crosswinds and contaminated runways etc, until you get to 100hrs on type. After 100hrs, you’re unrestricted.

Of course, a great deal of mentoring goes on in those first few hundred hours. You really learn how to fly from the line captains.

[FlightDetent]

but whether you’ve flown the same type for a different airline, or just came from pistons, you get 25 hrs.​​​​​Because the regulator demands minimum 25. I belive its also 8 sectors, not?

My first jet was 80 hrs and 40 sectors with 20 prescribed destinations to visit. So that the line captains did not need to mentor that much.

If commonly in your region it is the absolute minimum line training amount that is given to candidates who themselves barely qualify,.... there must be other arrangements which fill the obviously missing part. Previous real-life flying exposure is a good guess. :E

As observed many times before, the right side of Atlantic leans towards the institutionalised. The left side on doing things. But hey, no two tetris games are the same, just keep filling the blank spaces. The outcome becomes the same, despite different playing strategies.

​​​​​​



​​​​

[Check Airman]

Really not sure on the number of sectors needed. If transitioning from one type to another within the same company, it’s 15 hrs with a training captain, and fewer than 8 sectors for sure.



To be clear, you’re not kicked to the curb or released to the line at 25 hrs, no matter what. If you need more time, you’ll get it, but you’re not getting 140 hrs of instruction. The last person I knew of who couldn’t seem to get it together was fired after ~80 hrs of line training.



As alluded to before, there’s probably more real-life exposure than the average MPL is accustomed to. Most will have spent some time flying singe pilot IFR, and into the same size airports they’ll be flying jets out of.



You also raise a good point about our focus on “doing things”. From reading here, I get the feeling our side of the pond is more likely to say “let’s see what happens, the worst case scenario is a missed approach”.

[Chiefttp]

I think there is confusion as to what the 25 hours requirement is. First we’re talking about the USA. I was a 727 F/O for 10 years and then upgraded to DC-8 Capt with zero DC-8 time. I did my upgrade in the Sim and then flew 25 hours of OE (operating experience with an Instructor) took a checkride in the aircraft and was released to fly with some restrictions until I hit 100 hours. We don’t have MPL programs in the States as far as I know. I had 4500 hours prior experience in the Air Force also, so the 25 hours are just to get acclimated to the system. At my airline the average new hire has 6000 hrs plus, and the average age is around 38. 99% of our new hires were captains prior to getting hired. Apples and Oranges and not applicable to this conversation about 140 hr pilots. I will say that those who do have issues are the new hires that are not experienced.

[Check Airman]

True that at a major, most new hires have prior 121 time, but it’s still 25 hrs at a regional.

[giggitygiggity]

Pilots new to airline flying are usually drinking out of a firehose, as everything is new to them. From check in, weight and balance, paperwork, PAs, etc. - let alone flying an aircraft 40 times heavier what they previously flew. And there's so many things to cover, Cat 2/3 approaches, NPAs with various levels of automation, manual flying, etc.

Seasoned captains with experience on type? Sure, couple of days so they get used to the different papers and checklists, and off they go. New first officers whose last aircraft was C172? No way.
But that's not the case. They've done over double the amount of time in the sim and have lived and breathed the A320 (or 737) mass+balance, CAT 2/3, NPAs etc during that time. My airline has a well established MPL program (not sure, but I'd be surprised if there are any bigger ones globally). It's 50 sectors minimum here, which is probably 100hrs or more of flying and obviously more as required. After that, they'll have a number of restrictions that won't get removed till their command. Half crosswind limit, no contaminated runways, no autolands as PF, minimum 400m RVR, initially restrictions on reduced flap landings (they go after about 6 months).

The reality is we just don't have an aviation sector that would cater to what seems absoultely necessary on the otherside of the atlantic. The safety data shows it doesn't matter anyway, the European skies are not more dangerous. Clearly not every training department/program is as robust as the next one, but saying 'no way' seems to be entirely emotional rather than logical when the evidence doesn't seem to exist. If the concern is this great, I'd never get on a European aircraft again as there will be few (none?) that operate without these sorts of cadets.

I can think of countless incidents where very experienced crews made some elementary and often catestrophic mistakes. On the other hand, I struggle to think of many where a freshly minted cadet was the fundemental reason for an incident - one which an average experienced guy would have saved the day. Obviosuly we're looking at this one from the UAE involving a cadet, but it still doesn't seem like a mistake that an experienced crew would be immune from, neither was it initially detected by a very experienced trainer.

[FlyingStone]

I think you might have misread my post.

My point was that it is unrealistic to have only 25 hours of line training for inexperienced pilots transitioning from light aircraft to first jet.