LTC course requirements

[Jwscud]

Does anyone have the reference for the minimum training required to be a Line Training Captain under EASA? I am struggling to find exact references beyond “nominated by operator” and the requirement for a RHS check? I assume some form of simulator and aircraft training but can’t find any details, though I admit my ability to wade through EASA “easy access” docs is limited.

Is it ultimately a matter between the operator and the NAA of choice when writing their OM D?

[Nick 1]

Hi, try to search here under the FCL section , this website is not anymore updated but always useful .
https://www.part-aero.com

[deltahotel]

It’s incredibly vague as my searching has shown! If you search ‘line training captain requirements’ I came up with AMC for Moldova CAA. Good a place as any to start I guess.

[Cak]

EASA doesn't recognise LTC definition. There are no requirements besides company's OM-D, which must be accepted by NAA

[Jwscud]

Thanks all - similarly all I found was a requirement for individuals conducting line checks &c to be nominated and listed in OM D and for them to receive CRM/EBT training depending on the type of checking the operator uses. Found similar AMCs via Google.

Seems odd that there are no real external requirements for such a widely used position.

[nickler]

Thanks all - similarly all I found was a requirement for individuals conducting line checks &c to be nominated and listed in OM D and for them to receive CRM/EBT training depending on the type of checking the operator uses. Found similar AMCs via Google.

Seems odd that there are no real external requirements for such a widely used position.

As You’ve posted EASA “regulates” Line check captains to make it cheaper for airlines to run line checks. By some kind of strange interpretation the same applies to LTCs who are also more or less trained for LIFUS. This all thing became widely used by low cost operators. Imagine the difference in costs between training an LTC with a 2/3 days course including sim and a few line flights under supervision and a TRI who has to go through the whole course, get an AOC in the SIM and an AOC in the aircraft, plus you get an official instructor rating so if you dump your airline shortly afterwards then you got a rating for free. Bottom line is: make it cheap, make it fast, in the end you’re only putting a 200 hours cadet with a line captain who got an 8 hours classroom training and a 4 hour sim session in intervention training. It’s all ok.

[rudestuff]

My last UK airline required the "core" course to be LTC. That's the 25 hours teaching and learning common to all instructor ratings.

[nickler]

My last UK airline required the "core" course to be LTC. That's the 25 hours teaching and learning common to all instructor ratings.

That’s because they were doing things properly but EASA land embraces many different points of view…

[FlyingStone]

If you are designing a training program from scratch, just think of what kind of knowledge/skills you think an LTC would need - I’m sure as long as you’ve put some thought into it, it should be acceptable to your authority.

A full T&L course isn’t a bad start, combined with a session or two (or three) in the sim, consisting of RHS (re)familiarisation and check, UPRT, takeover techniques, patter/intervention, rejected/balked landings, etc.

A full TRI course for an LTC is a huge overkill, IMHO. An LTC doesn’t need to know how to operate the sim, teach abnormal procedures, most manuevers (including UPRT), or even most of the normal procedures to be fair, as the student should have demonstrated this by the time they arrive at the line training stage - how else would they have passed their LST? Let alone AoC in the aircraft, even a lot of TRI/Es don’t have that, unless they do base training or ZFTT.

It’s much more productive to focus on skills they actually need to be an effective LTC.

[nickler]

If you are designing a training program from scratch, just think of what kind of knowledge/skills you think an LTC would need - I’m sure as long as you’ve put some thought into it, it should be acceptable to your authority.

A full T&L course isn’t a bad start, combined with a session or two (or three) in the sim, consisting of RHS (re)familiarisation and check, UPRT, takeover techniques, patter/intervention, rejected/balked landings, etc.

A full TRI course for an LTC is a huge overkill, IMHO. An LTC doesn’t need to know how to operate the sim, teach abnormal procedures, most manuevers (including UPRT), or even most of the normal procedures to be fair, as the student should have demonstrated this by the time they arrive at the line training stage - how else would they have passed their LST? Let alone AoC in the aircraft, even a lot of TRI/Es don’t have that, unless they do base training or ZFTT.

It’s much more productive to focus on skills they actually need to be an effective LTC.

I have a different opinion.

Having a complete instructor background makes overall a big difference in the way the LIFUS is conducted. Learning how to conduct briefings, debriefings and handling a sim improves situational awareness, workload and time management and communication. I have trained new TRIs on the line to conduct LIFUS and have recently started training new LTCs to do the same. It is a different story. Ok 2 different airlines, where TRI training took 3 months and somewhere else the LTC training takes 3 days. The end result is a bit different.

[FlyingStone]

Previous experience obviously makes things different. You could also argue that having an LTC experience would make for a better TRI. Similarly someone with extensive FI/IRI background would typically perform better in the role of LTC or TRI from day 1 compared to just a normal experienced line captain.

The question is, where do we draw the line?

[BraceBrace]

I have a different opinion.

Having a complete instructor background makes overall a big difference in the way the LIFUS is conducted. Learning how to conduct briefings, debriefings and handling a sim improves situational awareness, workload and time management and communication. I have trained new TRIs on the line to conduct LIFUS and have recently started training new LTCs to do the same. It is a different story. Ok 2 different airlines, where TRI training took 3 months and somewhere else the LTC training takes 3 days. The end result is a bit different.

Workload, time management and communcation is a captain's responsability on the flightdeck from day one, you don't need to be TRI or LTC for that. It is the first thing a TRI/LTC will have to "guide" when flying with upgrading people flying in the left seat for the first time. So it's understandable that a company might require some time in the left seat before you're eligible to be an LTC or TRI.

The companies I know will make TRI's undergo TRI training in the simulator and start LIFUS flying already before that as it takes a long time to complete the simulator training. When you start out as a TRI, it's the same "swimming" feeling as an LTC when you do LIFUS for the first time. Both TRI and LTC have at that point received exactly the same teaching & learning training. There is no "new" status that makes you gain experience in the simulator first as a TRI, you're "thrown in the LIFUS flying" like any other starting LTC.

And as mentioned before, having LTC experience before jumping into a TRI position is a gigantic advantage.

[nickler]

Workload, time management and communcation is a captain's responsability on the flightdeck from day one, you don't need to be TRI or LTC for that. It is the first thing a TRI/LTC will have to "guide" when flying with upgrading people flying in the left seat for the first time. So it's understandable that a company might require some time in the left seat before you're eligible to be an LTC or TRI.

The companies I know will make TRI's undergo TRI training in the simulator and start LIFUS flying already before that as it takes a long time to complete the simulator training. When you start out as a TRI, it's the same "swimming" feeling as an LTC when you do LIFUS for the first time. Both TRI and LTC have at that point received exactly the same teaching & learning training. There is no "new" status that makes you gain experience in the simulator first as a TRI, you're "thrown in the LIFUS flying" like any other starting LTC.

And as mentioned before, having LTC experience before jumping into a TRI position is a gigantic advantage.

If you had read my post better you would have seen that I mentioned “improves” which an undeniable matter of fact; observing 2 trainees in the front whilst operating the sim and taking notes improves workload management, when and how to communicate and situational awareness.
Historically speaking in the former JAA Land LTC were the so called “nominated commanders”; Cpts nominated by the operator to support line training mainly dealing with pilots in the last phases of training prior to their final line check.
My personal experience having dealt/dealing in training TRIs and LTCs is that a good experience in the backseat of the sim makes the transition to “the real thing” smoother and with consolidated teaching techniques in addition to higher quality facilitation and debriefing skills. The “abuse” of LTCs in having to deal with 200 hours cadet derives from the need to find something quick and cheap for airlines. I do know for a fact that many serious operators conduct LTCs training of high quality and get their guys ready for the challenge but since EASA does not put any barrier to this, you can find operators with some questionable training programs with a ground school day, one sim and 4 sectors. And obviously the LTC has a solid 500 hours PIC to compensate this short training. This is also part of the race to the bottom. You want instructors? Good give the guys a rating. If they run away with a TRI in their pocket in means you’re a crappy operator, as simple as that.

[excrab]

Totally agree with Nickler, when I did my U.K. TRE standards course with the CAA twenty years ago they were saying that it is far better to start as a TRI in the sim. Learn to instruct, and really learn all the emergencies and how to deal with them, safe in the back of a simulator with a freeze button before trying it on a dark winters night in an aeroplane with 200 passengers and a 250 hour trainee in the RHS and a 350 hr “safety pilot” on the jump seat.

Twenty years later I work for a major U.K. operator who still refuse to let someone be a TRI in the sim before they’ve been a line trainer, despite the fact that the core course is the same.

[BizJetJock]

despite the fact that the core course is the same.
Actually even that is considerably better than a lot of companies do in the way of LTC training. 1 day intro if you're lucky, sometimes it's "oh, you were a PPL instructor weren't you? That'll do!"

[Cak]

Actually even that is considerably better than a lot of companies do in the way of LTC training. 1 day intro if you're lucky, sometimes it's "oh, you were a PPL instructor weren't you? That'll do!"

Well, at least PPL instructor did teaching and learning part :)
And many companies are not doing even that to nominate LTCs

[arobas]

At the end, it's a question of money and ego. The different CAA should not write down requirements for LTC as it will go against the main purpose: having a cheap instructor. Unless the requirements are so low that it makes no difference. There is the ego issue. If you are asking to a TRi or TRe what he is thinking about LTCs , what do think would be his answer? Yes , but ...
Some CAA do not have anything written about LTCs requirements some do. You need to check with yours. Just ask the questions your local licensing office. That's the best way to be 100% sure. Br

[olster]

I agree with Nickler and excrab. It is a more challenging role to be an LTC integrating training objectives into the real world. Particularly with recent graduates of training schools ie inexperienced. A solid grounding operating as an SFI / TRI or equivalent with core course etc should in an ideal world lead in to LTC roles. No freeze button in reality unfortunately.

[nickler]

Also, let’s consider another simple fact. If any of You is a member of those Airbus discussion groups on social networks like facebook, etc.. You probably have noticed that many times low timers come up with extremely basic questions on airplane handling, descent management, and so on. Ok, there are a lot of Flight Sim pilots around (by the way I am also a passionate user of flight simulators so respect!) but the “real” ones also come up with those types of questions. This is very symptomatic of cadets flying with unprepared LTCs who probably know how to do their Captain job very well, but do not possess the required KSA to teach a freshly graduated pilot how to get from FL360 to the runway without leaving them with 100 doubts. Why is that? Because a proper full TRI course followed by hundreds of hours of briefings, debriefings, briefings, debriefings, will allow you to master the way you transmit KSA to the trainees in a safe environment (freeze button is there) and get you ready to pump things up in the real thing, later on, with full fare paying pax. The amount of “brain space” needed to teach will be vastly reduced as You are used to the job and you can focus now to “properly” teach in a dynamic environment. My 2c based on experience folks.

[olster]

Spot on nickler . Would press the like button if there was one.

[Mikehotel152]

Interesting discussion. I think I'll go against the trend on this one.

I've spent years as an LTC in an airline renowned for its training department. Within the department the role of LTC is universally seen as the most demanding in the company but it is technically and monetarily a lower rung on the ladder.

Recently a lot of CPs have done the course to qualify as TREs and TRIs, many openly saying that they did it for the easier life. The TRIs in particular run recurrent and type rating training from a script and the TREs examine using the exact same criteria as the LTCs who conduct the majority of the line checks.

The difference is that the LTCs are providing the training while also running a commercial operation as PIC. And there is no script or position freeze on the line. We are also picking up errors from the SIM caused by a lack of quality and airmanship in the SIM trainers. Most of the LTCs have considerably more line hours than those in the SIM at the time they commence the role.

I appreciate that a good trainer, whether the SIM or on the line needs to be both motivated and also talented in the art of teaching, but in my airline, at least, the notion that the TRI is a more in depth or demanding role doesn't match my experiences or the feedback I hear from colleagues who've abandoned line flying for the SIM.

Recently a new CP in my airline became a TRI 6 months after gaining his command, which is not unusual. I can see that he will be good at that job, but as an LTC he'd be hopeless. Conversely attracting experienced CPs to become LTCs is very difficult.

[nickler]

Interesting discussion. I think I'll go against the trend on this one.



Not necessarily in fact.

We all agree that LIFUS can be far more challenging than instructing in the sim. But as You mention:

I've spent years as an LTC in an airline renowned for its training department.

That is basically where most if not all the difference comes from.

A robust training department which has been granted some cash to be spent on proper pilots training will come up with a proper pilot selection and training for the role of LTC. The footprint to be followed for LTC in EASA land is very basic and generic, hence it will take 2 days for some Operators and 2 months for others. The lack of common FCL rules as for TRI training makes the difference.