New ICAO licencing standards.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Getting there..!
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flew with a bunch of 150-200 hour (CAP 509 i think it was) f/o's a few years ago in the UK..Scary stuff indeed though I do know that quite a few eventually got to command.
A little lateral thinking here. If a wannabe shows up with a record of a couple of thousand hours of VA experience (Virtual Airline on internet) and nows the '400 sim backwards, which a lot do. Rocks up for a sim flight and aces it because of prior experience with a kick-ass PC. (After all it IS a sim-ride) Then he is let loose to manage the FMS in the real thing
Interesting times. After watching cable over the last couple of months and seeing doco's on remote mounted cockpits, hardwired flight control systems to avoid designated TFRs in the states. Systems to positiveley avoid CFIT regardless whatever pilot input or not. Totally autonomous weapon platforms (i.e. no ground control) Plus the current/old technology of fly-by-wire ready made for autonomous computer control....
Technology is pretty amazing. We do not know what will happen in the next decade. Who knows, maybe the best experience an ATPL ( if there will be such a thing in the future!)should have is being able to type at better than 80 a minute...Interesting times indeed
Regards
Mark
Interesting times. After watching cable over the last couple of months and seeing doco's on remote mounted cockpits, hardwired flight control systems to avoid designated TFRs in the states. Systems to positiveley avoid CFIT regardless whatever pilot input or not. Totally autonomous weapon platforms (i.e. no ground control) Plus the current/old technology of fly-by-wire ready made for autonomous computer control....
Technology is pretty amazing. We do not know what will happen in the next decade. Who knows, maybe the best experience an ATPL ( if there will be such a thing in the future!)should have is being able to type at better than 80 a minute...Interesting times indeed
Regards
Mark
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oz
Age: 75
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the new training model!!
for those who are interested this is the ICAO annex 1 site.
the Lufthansa site is a bit to braod to give a direct link - suggest you use google to go there and then have a look around, it takes bit to fully determine how they are training - but if you put it all together (for lufthansa itself ) they are using a model very similar to the one which started this thread.
http://www.icao.int/icao/en/anb/pelt...trg/index.html
A point to consider is that the proposed model is for "Airline Training"; that is airlines training for their requirments and to their procedures etc, yes much of the training will probably be done under contract by existing (or new providers) but it will have a negible effect on the rest of the training world or indeed the rest of the pilot community. We will simply see Cathay, BA Lufthansa and the like making changes to their existing cadet programs - the numbers are unlikely to change (if they can't find them now the change in training is not going to make selection any easier, just a little different). so they will still need to resource from the "unwashed/unblessed", just as for example Cathay does now through their direct entry S/O program.
In addition, despite the hype, the chances of training being soley by Sim in the foreseeable future is extremely remote - there will however be an increase in the use of Sims at the early end of the process not at the high cost end. So the ranting regards the high cost of Sims being a significant factor are just that although the ever increasing capability of Sims and the greater number of ZFT's being approved will see a steady change in the whole dynamic.
In short don't panic the sky is not falling the strange feeling you are experiencing is generally refered to as Progress!!!!
the Lufthansa site is a bit to braod to give a direct link - suggest you use google to go there and then have a look around, it takes bit to fully determine how they are training - but if you put it all together (for lufthansa itself ) they are using a model very similar to the one which started this thread.
http://www.icao.int/icao/en/anb/pelt...trg/index.html
A point to consider is that the proposed model is for "Airline Training"; that is airlines training for their requirments and to their procedures etc, yes much of the training will probably be done under contract by existing (or new providers) but it will have a negible effect on the rest of the training world or indeed the rest of the pilot community. We will simply see Cathay, BA Lufthansa and the like making changes to their existing cadet programs - the numbers are unlikely to change (if they can't find them now the change in training is not going to make selection any easier, just a little different). so they will still need to resource from the "unwashed/unblessed", just as for example Cathay does now through their direct entry S/O program.
In addition, despite the hype, the chances of training being soley by Sim in the foreseeable future is extremely remote - there will however be an increase in the use of Sims at the early end of the process not at the high cost end. So the ranting regards the high cost of Sims being a significant factor are just that although the ever increasing capability of Sims and the greater number of ZFT's being approved will see a steady change in the whole dynamic.
In short don't panic the sky is not falling the strange feeling you are experiencing is generally refered to as Progress!!!!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then what!
Alright, so this cookie-cutter comes out of "airline pilot" school to get furloughed, or his airline goes broke. Then what? No licence?
What happens if the airline expands rapidly? Who gets to upgrade, on what, and with what experience level.
What about the experiences they have had at United where, among other examples, an International Relief Officer who was designated an actual take-off nearly destroyed himself, the aircraft and all souls on board, following a simple compressor stall of the number 3 engine.
It's a lot like a mutual fund, "past performance does not guarantee a future performance". Yeah, well, too bad. The more successful past performance I can see in a logbook of anything bigger than a hang glider, tells me s/he knows how to fly.
Simple as that!
What happens if the airline expands rapidly? Who gets to upgrade, on what, and with what experience level.
What about the experiences they have had at United where, among other examples, an International Relief Officer who was designated an actual take-off nearly destroyed himself, the aircraft and all souls on board, following a simple compressor stall of the number 3 engine.
It's a lot like a mutual fund, "past performance does not guarantee a future performance". Yeah, well, too bad. The more successful past performance I can see in a logbook of anything bigger than a hang glider, tells me s/he knows how to fly.
Simple as that!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Talked over coffee to ex GA pilot now flying with Dragonair. He was completely surprised at the highly competent standard of the local "ex cadet" first officers flying the A330's - some with as little as 500 hours. Seems that lots of Chieftain and Cessna 210 hours doesn't translate into equivalent jet transport competency where automatics and general button pushing skills is considered more important than raw data manual skills. Never thought I would see the day when airmanship and steely eyed rat cunning would be surpassed by automatic monkey skills. Fact of life nowadays. And it works, too.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My eight year old....
My son could be taught to fly an A-330, and I'm sure he'd do quite well at it! A box of Doritos in front of a Playstation 2, I'm sure he could lead any nation into war with a bunch of UAVs hooked up too. That's not the point.
Cathay had a problem with gearboxes on those A-330s not long ago that nearly led to a double engine flame-out on one of their aircraft. Rolls Royce and Cathay both agreed to suspend all flights until it was sorted out. That's not all...the captain who went against company advice and diverted, rather than continue to destination was met with some disturbing news after landing. The other engine had chewed its gearbox too and was just about to fail.
What does your "Pavlovian School of Aeronautics" pilot do in similar circumstances. I know, I've seen them. They recite some stupid memo they read about in groundschool about losing an engine and the statistical chance of a second failure, and they continue on, because, that's what the bean counters want.
I was a co-pilot, not that long ago (1995) when all this bull-**** production-line pilot training started. I was flying in the right seat of a Jetstream 41 when we had a computer failure of the right engine. The engine works fine without the computer on, you just lose Automatic Performance Reserve, Auto Relight, Automatic Exceedance Protections and prop synch. This dumb ass wanted to shut the friggin' engine down. We turned off the computer and it ran fine, all with the inflight concurrence of a maintenance control that was patched through ARINC.
If this sort of crap is allowed to continue and go on the way it is, somebody is going to kill a lot of people in the process. The Americans are now only just realising this. Many regional airlines are recruiting off-the-street captains with prior experience.
Theory always gets lost in the translation to practice, it always has! Society has changed so much too. I flew with First Officers in JFK that had never had to change a spark plug in a lawn mower or wash dishes. The result was an aircraft that was deiced with water on a freezing night because no glycol had been added. It looked like a glazed donut and the FO didn't notice on the preflight.
That's why, especially now, you need experience on the flight deck, the more the better.
Cathay had a problem with gearboxes on those A-330s not long ago that nearly led to a double engine flame-out on one of their aircraft. Rolls Royce and Cathay both agreed to suspend all flights until it was sorted out. That's not all...the captain who went against company advice and diverted, rather than continue to destination was met with some disturbing news after landing. The other engine had chewed its gearbox too and was just about to fail.
What does your "Pavlovian School of Aeronautics" pilot do in similar circumstances. I know, I've seen them. They recite some stupid memo they read about in groundschool about losing an engine and the statistical chance of a second failure, and they continue on, because, that's what the bean counters want.
I was a co-pilot, not that long ago (1995) when all this bull-**** production-line pilot training started. I was flying in the right seat of a Jetstream 41 when we had a computer failure of the right engine. The engine works fine without the computer on, you just lose Automatic Performance Reserve, Auto Relight, Automatic Exceedance Protections and prop synch. This dumb ass wanted to shut the friggin' engine down. We turned off the computer and it ran fine, all with the inflight concurrence of a maintenance control that was patched through ARINC.
If this sort of crap is allowed to continue and go on the way it is, somebody is going to kill a lot of people in the process. The Americans are now only just realising this. Many regional airlines are recruiting off-the-street captains with prior experience.
Theory always gets lost in the translation to practice, it always has! Society has changed so much too. I flew with First Officers in JFK that had never had to change a spark plug in a lawn mower or wash dishes. The result was an aircraft that was deiced with water on a freezing night because no glycol had been added. It looked like a glazed donut and the FO didn't notice on the preflight.
That's why, especially now, you need experience on the flight deck, the more the better.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris, as usual, is quite correct.
Most people can be taught to operate the machine, but a flight is a WHOLE lot more than just operating the machine.
Unfortunately, pilots who go straight into flying in an airline environment are tailored to that environment. When something foreign enters that environment, something that they have never seen in a sim or on the line, they are generally less well equipped to deal successfully with an 'unusual' situation than say, a pilot who has more extensive and varied experience, especially in SPIFR where decision making and command judgement are singularly executed without anyone else to 'hold their hand'.
I am quite sure that there are many professionally minded and skilled pilots who were cadets etc. The point I make is not about attitude or ability. It is the simple and undeniable fact that there is a distinct lack of experience - maybe not a lack of experienec, but shall we say 'holes'in their experience - and when the ****e hits the fan - most pilots would draw upon their experience to extracate their aircraft, passengers and themselves from a serious situation. What do these guys draw upon?
The fact that modern equipment is so good and so reliable, masks the dangers of the 'holes' in these pilots' experience.
Every now and again, the mask comes off for example, (look at the A320 in Dubai).
Having said that, I don't think you need 1000hrs to get into a 210!
Most people can be taught to operate the machine, but a flight is a WHOLE lot more than just operating the machine.
Unfortunately, pilots who go straight into flying in an airline environment are tailored to that environment. When something foreign enters that environment, something that they have never seen in a sim or on the line, they are generally less well equipped to deal successfully with an 'unusual' situation than say, a pilot who has more extensive and varied experience, especially in SPIFR where decision making and command judgement are singularly executed without anyone else to 'hold their hand'.
I am quite sure that there are many professionally minded and skilled pilots who were cadets etc. The point I make is not about attitude or ability. It is the simple and undeniable fact that there is a distinct lack of experience - maybe not a lack of experienec, but shall we say 'holes'in their experience - and when the ****e hits the fan - most pilots would draw upon their experience to extracate their aircraft, passengers and themselves from a serious situation. What do these guys draw upon?
The fact that modern equipment is so good and so reliable, masks the dangers of the 'holes' in these pilots' experience.
Every now and again, the mask comes off for example, (look at the A320 in Dubai).
Having said that, I don't think you need 1000hrs to get into a 210!
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can look at this as part of the state of the world as it is, and is becoming.
Cheaper. Automated. Consumable. Expendable.
The ARTISAN is a fast fading concept. These days, you don't build things to last. If they break, they get replaced, not fixed. Things are manufactured with the assistance of computers and productions lines to make them 'economically viable'.
Pilots are becoming part of this process.
How many pax would really be comfortable knowing that one of their operating crew has only 500 hours and a few months ago was just out of school?
Cheaper. Automated. Consumable. Expendable.
The ARTISAN is a fast fading concept. These days, you don't build things to last. If they break, they get replaced, not fixed. Things are manufactured with the assistance of computers and productions lines to make them 'economically viable'.
Pilots are becoming part of this process.
How many pax would really be comfortable knowing that one of their operating crew has only 500 hours and a few months ago was just out of school?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Asia
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Col, I guess you meant the A320 in Bahrain.
It all comes down to theory vs practice, we all get to the point in our sim training where we can fly the thing on rails - then we go to the aircraft and start all over again, combining the knowledge we learned in the sim with that of our past experience, if any.
I've seen sim techies fly the thing beautifully but I wouldn't let them near an aircraft! Two different worlds. To someone behind a desk the world is all theory, unfortunately these are the decision makers (not referring here to management pilots).
It all comes down to theory vs practice, we all get to the point in our sim training where we can fly the thing on rails - then we go to the aircraft and start all over again, combining the knowledge we learned in the sim with that of our past experience, if any.
I've seen sim techies fly the thing beautifully but I wouldn't let them near an aircraft! Two different worlds. To someone behind a desk the world is all theory, unfortunately these are the decision makers (not referring here to management pilots).
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aust
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not in defence of the ICAO proposal (which seems pretty whacky we'd all agree) but in response to the standard cadet 'wisdoms' being spun here. Why do most pilots in Mac Job's books have remarkably high experience levels. Its not unusual to read about pilots with >15000 hours experience or combined crews with >30,000 hours experience. We recently saw a 13000 hour plus RFDS pilot (who met all the definitions of experience as spouted here) involved in a CFIT in Mt Gambier. How could these pilots have accidents? Should we assume from this that experienced pilots are dangerous? Or perhaps we should assume that there are thousands of contributing factors to accidents/incidents, not just pilot experience levels.
How do RAAF transport & maritime pilots get commands? Is their RH seat experience worthless? Do they only start gaining experience when they get to the LH seat? As a tax payer I am outraged that we let pilots fly in C130Js and AP-3Cs without 4000 hours single engine time in the NT
How do RAAF transport & maritime pilots get commands? Is their RH seat experience worthless? Do they only start gaining experience when they get to the LH seat? As a tax payer I am outraged that we let pilots fly in C130Js and AP-3Cs without 4000 hours single engine time in the NT
Of course,it would work for lufthansa and was predicted in
the 1960 s film the magnificent men in their flying machines
when gert frobe had to suddenly learn how to fly a plane
just as all german officers do,by the book of instructions!
the 1960 s film the magnificent men in their flying machines
when gert frobe had to suddenly learn how to fly a plane
just as all german officers do,by the book of instructions!
