Merged: Senate Inquiry

[The Kelpie]

I have a question:

On what basis did CASA issue the MPL licenses to the China Eastern Cadets who carried out the course as a beta test?

Petteford told the inquiry that the MPL concept included only approx 70 hours in an aircraft and then was 100% level D sim. Assuming those are similar requirements to the CASA beta test how did they get around the requirement to have 240 hours of Aeronautical Experience prior to taking the flight test. Not total time, not sim time but Aeronautical Experience.

Aeronautical Experience is a CASA defined term and does not include sim time but only flight time and in that co-pilot time to be factored by a half.

Can someone explain this? Can CASA explain? Or is this just a big stuff up?

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[Icarus2001]

An engine fails .. Complete QRH.... What next??? The QRH does not tell you where to land. It does not tell you how much fuel you have. It does not tell you how heavy the aeroplane is, what weather and icing there is, terrain, destination runway length, instrument approaches, engineering support, passenger handling, dealing with cabin crew, notifying ATC. The list goes on. And this is where the experience kicks in! Prioritising and managing..

First up...99% of the time and engine DOES NOT fail. So how many decisions do you make on a routine flight from A-B huh?

Secondly, the fuel vs weight status has to be known preflight, you know calculate a CP PNR yada yada yada, to comply with regs and OM.

The other things you mention are PROCESS driven, the runway length is either suitable or not, an instrument approach may be required, not because the PIC decides that one is required but because the conditions are below prescribed conditions, from the regulator. Passenger handling, yep, give a PA, where is the decision? DEALING with the cabin crew? DEALING WITH? Do you mean managing them by keeping them informed?

Interestingly, Sully's water landing might not have had

Come on guys, the A380 and Sully account for two flights. Get some perspective here. More than 99% of flights are routine. So far in aircraft above 5700 kg I have a ONE engine failure, two hydraulic system problems, one partial depressuristaion and one generator failure. In all but ONE case we continued to destination as planned after completing the QRH.

So, all the thinking has been done for you eh?

That would be why a new pilot on a particular type performs exactly the same in a flight assessment as a pilot with thousands of hours on type.

You are confusing handling experience, confidence and familiarity with the task with DECISION making.

Thinking is not DECISION making.

My point is only this. On a regular line flight with no major failures, the PIC makes very few decisions, those that are made are generally selected from a limited choice avalable, no free thinking. If you feel that my post was ...

Probably one of the dumbest posts ever on pprune.

then you either don't understand my point or have an overdeveloped sense of your own importance as a pilot. Do you wear a big watch by any chance?

My post was a response to the assertion that the main role of a pilot was to make decisions. I believe this is incorrect. Our responses are almost all pavlovian. (Look it up). If not shown by our use of memory recalls and QRH and FCOM type checklists then by the fact that Captain X can be replaced by Captain Y on a sector and FO Z would still know what to do and what to expect from the different Captain. In a given situation we know and are expected to perform certain things in a certain way. No free thinking. Few decisions that are not apparent at the flight planning stage. eg An engine failure at position X would require fuel dumping and a return to A or it would require continuation to destination due to commercial reasons, pax and engineering support say.

Try the experiment. Next sector in a high cap RPT jet. See how many decisions you actually make that are not as a direct result of a requirement to comply with a reg, OM, etc. In other words are process driven by the logic of the situation.

Let me know how it goes.

[32megapixels]

Kelpie and others who contribute here. I must thank you for you ongoing updates and information passed on. I have not posted for a long time on Pprune. I must thank those that post important information. Look at the turn of events in the middle east, the internet, through people power has bought about change. This is what can happen here too. I just want to say I do strongly dislike greedy accountants! They do not see the art of aviation!

I would like to express my concerns for the direction of this industry too. I am a highly qualified airline pilot in this industry. I have worked hard, and got into this industry when it was seen as a viable and respected careeer. I am not stupid, ga background, uni degree and worked hard, started by digging holes and de-horning cattle in the bush, to get rewarded well.

What I see now is a continual spiral downhill. If I could only tell you the **** I have heard and seen, you would be reading a novel. So I won't.

What the problem is, with the continual deterioration of this industry is the skill set and brains being bought into it are being reduced. This is with cadets and ga guys and the lot. Less money being paid, less skill into aviation. Bus drivers of the sky. Whilst at the moment, great skill exists. The next 15 years could be interesting.

I think I need to get out of the airlines and work in corporate. Where Billionaires actually appreciate what was once a recognised career.

Please keep working hard. I am a member of both Unions. Don't know why sometimes, but I am. Thanks for all the hard work to you all that contribute here and keep those of us that don't usually post informed.

[Skynews]

Try the experiment. Next sector in a high cap RPT jet. See how many decisions you actually make that are not as a direct result of a requirement to comply with a reg, OM, etc. In other words are process driven by the logic of the situation.

As is suspect a lot of people value the original direction of this thread I won't hi jack for long.
Driving a car requires no decision making either using your logic ICARUS there are plenty of road rules and the vehicle has an operators manual.

Absolute rubbish. Can I suggest rather than distract from this thread you make a decision to start a new one and we can continue to discuss your idea.

[noip]

Icarus,

What an appropriate handle.

So many posts, and so little knowledge ...

sigh



N

[swh]

Originally Posted by The Kelpie

Assuming those are similar requirements to the CASA beta test how did they get around the requirement to have 240 hours of Aeronautical Experience prior to taking the flight test. Not total time, not sim time but Aeronautical Experience.

Aeronautical Experience is a CASA defined term and does not include sim time but only flight time and in that co-pilot time to be factored by a half.

Can someone explain this? Can CASA explain? Or is this just a big stuff up?

Aeronautical experience is not a constant definition, it changes for aircraft, helicopters, airships, gyroplane, and types of licence (PPL, CPL, ATPL, Flight Engineer). One needs to refer to the recent experience applicable to the type of licence being sought.

The requirements for a MPL(A)L are defined in CAR 1988 5.214

"(1) For paragraph 5.207 (2) (g), a person’s aeronautical experience must consist of at least 240 hours of training as a pilot during an approved course of training.
(2) The 240 hours must include:
(a) at least 40 hours of flight time as pilot of a registered aeroplane; and
(b) at least 10 hours of solo flight time in a registered aeroplane; and
(c) at least 5 hours of cross‑country flight time as pilot in command in a registered aeroplane; and
(d) at least 12 take‑offs and 12 landings in the type of aeroplane mentioned in paragraph 5.207 (2) (f).
(3) For subregulation (2), the same flight time may be counted towards the time required by as many of paragraphs (2) (a), (b) and (c) as describe the flight time.
(4) The balance of the 240 hours of training may be in an approved synthetic flight trainer."

These requirements stem from ICAO Annex 1 Personal Licensing

"2.5.3 Experience

2.5.3.1 The applicant shall have completed in an approved training course not less than 240 hours as pilot flying and pilot not flying of actual and simulated flight.

2.5.3.2 Flight experience in actual flight shall include at least the experience requirements at 2.3.3.1, upset recovery training, night flying and flight by reference solely to instruments.

2.5.3.3 In addition to meeting the provisions of 2.5.3.2, the applicant shall have gained, in a turbine-powered aeroplane certificated for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, or in a flight simulation training device approved for that purpose by the Licensing Authority in accordance with Appendix 3, paragraph 4, the experience necessary to achieve the advanced level of competency defined in Appendix 3."

'4. Simulated flight

4.1 The flight simulation training devices used to gain the experience specified in Chapter 2, 2.5.3.3, shall have been approved by the Licensing Authority."

CASAs requirements actually exceeds ICAOs.

[The Kelpie]

SWH

Thanks for that, I see where you are coming from however there is still something troubling me.

The CASA wide definitions are included as follows on the CASA website:

Flight Simulator or Synthetic Trainer Time Practice in an approved simulator or trainer may be recorded in the section provided at the rear of the log book. The instrument flight element of the simulator time may be transferred to the 'Ground' column of the Instrument Flight section of the flight record.
If a Flight Simulator or Synthetic Trainer Practice section is not available in the log book, the details may be entered chronologically in the flight record, and the Instrument flight element transferred to a suitably titled column.
In older log books, the 'Ground Training' or 'Simulator' column of the Instrument section of the flight record may be used for 'Ground' entries.

and

Total Aeronautical Experience Total aeronautical experience is calculated by adding the totals of flight times recorded in each column but in such a way that that any flight time is not included more than once in the grand total hours.
Note also that only 50% of the time logged as a co-pilot may be included in the total.

given that

Flight Time means, in the case of a heavier-than-air aircraft, the total time from when the aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking-off until the moment at which it comes to rest after landing. This is synonymous with 'chock to chock', 'block to block' or 'push back to block' time.
In the case of a helicopter, whenever helicopter rotors are engaged for the purpose of a flight, the time will be included in the flight time.

On the basis of your suggestion that 'Aeronautical Experience' is not a constant CASA definition, How would you log you MPL training in the Australian Standard Logbook and how would you total up the columns at the end of each page??

Given that nowhere in the Order is there an alternative definition offerred, I would suggest that there is a problem with the drafting of the CAO in that the use of the terms 'aeronautical experience' has been used inappropriately should the CASA wide definition not have been intended and that there is a world of difference between this term and a possible alternative '240 hours of training' which I believe CAO 40.1.8 should have adopted within Appendix 3.

Can I suggest also that the wording of CAR regulation 5.214 is also a little ambiguous, and whilst offerring a little further clarity on the matter it does nothing more than require that a pilot's overall aeronautical experience must comprise (read 'include') 'at least 240 hours of training as a pilot during an approved course of training' for which the remainder of the regulation offers confirmation of the content of the 240 hours.

Also Appendix 3 of CAO 40.1.8 states that the 240 hours of aeronautical experience is a pre-requisite for sitting the flight test, whereas regulation 5.207 (2) g considers this to be the level of aeronautical experience to hold the licence. There is a discrepency here between the two documents as if the CAO is correct then the minimum aeronautical experience to hold the licence must be 240 hours plus the time of the flight test.

Sorry for the thread drift but I thought it was worth a look at as it is relevent to the possibility there is a problem within CASA given that if my suggestion is correct they may have issued 5 MPL licences illegally that are currently being held by pilots flying the line in China.

Kelpie

[SW3]

Icarus like it or not being a pilot is all about decision making. And in reality this is the issue with cadet programs, you can't put every decision to make into a book!
How about this, next time I go to work and don't make any decisions, then I will let you know. Otherwise we will pre program the FMS, engineer us out of the cockpit and put us out of work.
It's also as much about judgment as decisions. How many accidents boils down to an error in judgement? Judgement comes down to, shock horror, experience!

[ThePaperBoy]

Kelpie,

Check your PMs regarding MPL info. Petteford has had nothing to do with it in Australia. The contact I've given to you will be able to explain how Alteon and AAA worked with CASA on the trial.

[The Kelpie]

Paperboy

Thanks for the info. Yes I know Petteford had nothing to do with it but my research lead me to come across the information that raised questions. I suppose CASA are on my scope now.

Does anyone have a copy of the Conditions CASA put on the approval to Jetstar's Cadet programme?

During the Inquiry I could not work out whether CASA has audited the initial cadets and satisfied itself that Jetstar had complied in all respects. I think McCormick said they did.

Cheers

Kelpie

[airtags]

Kelpie:

McCormick said they were satisfied with the process

which does of course afford him with a very slim out in respect of the specific application of the process.

The CARE factor (acronym) is no doubt at the top of his list of things to do.


AT

[swh]

Originally Posted by The Kelpie

How would you log you MPL training in the Australian Standard Logbook and how would you total up the columns at the end of each page??

For the flight time same as normal. For the ground FTD/FFS time, same as normal. For the totals, same as normal.

I do not understand the problem you have with this.

Originally Posted by The Kelpie

There is a discrepency here between the two documents as if the CAO is correct then the minimum aeronautical experience to hold the licence must be 240 hours plus the time of the flight test.

No discrepancy at all, CAR 1988 207
(d) has completed an approved course of training;
(e) has been awarded a pass in an appropriate flight test; and
(g) has the aeronautical experience set out in regulation 5.214.

Para (d) means at the approved course (i.e. minimum is 240 hours), (e) means the addition of a flight test pass (as that is not part of the course of training), and (g) means 240 hours of training which must include 40 hours in an aircraft, 10 hours solo, 5 hours cross country command.

[The Kelpie]

SWH

So you add up all your sim time do you and add it to your Aeronautical Experience total do you??

You are only entitled to log sim time in the instrument columns and these are not used in the Aeronautical Experience calculation.

On the other matter. The CAO says that 240 hours in the minimum before you can even apply for a test. whereas the regs say 240 for the licence (ie including test).

Don't worry about it SWH it is a question for Crosthwaite at CASA to answer!!

Kelpie

[Low and Fast]

Kelpie

Has the senate proposed the next hearing date?

[swh]

Originally Posted by The Kelpie

So you add up all your sim time do you and add it to your Aeronautical Experience total do you??

The FTD/FSS time is logged and counted the same as it does for a non-MP(A)L holder. It is one consistent standard. The MP(A)L course allows the applicant to use more FTD/FSS time to count towards the issue of a licence.

FTD/FDD can be counted towards the issue of other licences, i.e. for a CP(A)L 10 hours in accordance with CAR 5.112 (1). In this case a CP(A)L holder may attempt a test with 140 hours flight time, and 10 hours in an approved synthetic flight trainer.

Originally Posted by The Kelpie

The CAO says that 240 hours in the minimum before you can even apply for a test. whereas the regs say 240 for the licence (ie including test).

CAR 1988 207 "(d) has completed an approved course of training;", i.e. completed at least 240 hours. That is also on the MP(A)L test form.

It does not include the test, you are misrepresenting what is clear in black and white.

Originally Posted by The Kelpie

Don't worry about it SWH it is a question for Crosthwaite at CASA to answer!!

You are wrong on this one, and clearly do not understand the MP(A)L process. It was introduced by ICAO as an international standard, not CASA, it is being used worldwide very successfully.

Instead of shooting this down as something bad, we should be embracing it. That is the way airlines want their pilots trained, far better for them to get a new pilot with 200 hours (i.e. around 50 simulator sessions) with a type rating and instrument rating on the type they will be flying, trained to their SOPs in an airline environment rather than a 150 hr CPL with no multi crew exposure and no idea on how to operate the aircraft they are supposed to be flying.

It is competency based training, meaning, if you do not meet the standard, applicants do not get the qualification. The required standard is a lot more diverse an applicable to a multi-crew aircraft than what the CP(A)L syllabus is aimed at a entry level GA operator.

[The Kelpie]

Not yet as far as I am aware.

[Capt_SNAFU]

Instead of shooting this down as something bad, we should be embracing it. That is the way airlines want their pilots trained, far better for them to get a new pilot with 200 hours (i.e. around 50 simulator sessions) with a type rating and instrument rating on the type they will be flying, trained to their SOPs in an airline environment rather than a 150 hr CPL with no multi crew exposure and no idea on how to operate the aircraft they are supposed to be flying.

It is competency based training, meaning, if you do not meet the standard, applicants do not get the qualification. The required standard is a lot more diverse an applicable to a multi-crew aircraft than what the CP(A)L syllabus is aimed at a entry level GA operator.

RUBBISH! A bigger load of tripe I have not heard in quite some time. The MP(A)L is only endorsed by airlines because they think there will be a shortage of pilots in the future and they need a mechanism to get more through the pipeline. Not because it is a better way of doing things but because it is more expedient. A CPL holder that gets into an airline also has to do an endorsement on type. I also didn't think too many MP licensees had been issued worldwide.

[The Kelpie]

....and that is why Easyjet are apprehensive, however have agreed to a trial of 30 cadets trained by this method with the king of cadetships Petteford.

The poor suckers that sign up are in for a rough ride unless they focus on the bigger picture!!

['holic]

That is the way airlines want their pilots trained, far better for them to get a new pilot with 200 hours (i.e. around 50 simulator sessions) with a type rating and instrument rating on the type they will be flying, trained to their SOPs in an airline environment rather than a 150 hr CPL with no multi crew exposure and no idea on how to operate the aircraft they are supposed to be flying.

Good point, except we're all talking about getting your 150 hr CPL, plus a few thousand hours in GA and then joining an airline. Which airlines are hiring bare 150 hr CPLs?

It is competency based training, meaning, if you do not meet the standard, applicants do not get the qualification.

As opposed to what they do at the moment, which is .... ?

[Sunfish]

'holic:

It is competency based training, meaning, if you do not meet the standard, applicants do not get the qualification.

I'm "competency based" qualified and on a good day I'm competent, on a bad day, not so much.

You think I don't know this? You think cadets don't know this?

The fact that I can do something when I'm on my best behaviour proves nothing.

In the military we staged "tests" when we deliberately made sure that things did not go according to plan. We made those things happen in ways that the candidate was unaware of. We deliberately set guys up to fail, starting with getting them pissed the night before, then feeding them bullsh1te, then telling them to work with troops who were in on the joke.

"Competency based" ???? Compared to what?