Jetstar Cadet Scheme Failing To Produce Safe Pilots?
Cadet schemes are now totally cost driven. It is such a powerful factor that training departments are putting under-done pilots on the line due management pressures.
The real risk will be the generational mesh- when cadets are junior captains flying with fresh cadets. Technology and tombstone based training will address the risk; but will there be gaping holes in piloting skills and knowledge base?
The real risk will be the generational mesh- when cadets are junior captains flying with fresh cadets. Technology and tombstone based training will address the risk; but will there be gaping holes in piloting skills and knowledge base?
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Not Brisbane
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gnadenburg
From what I understand the ROK Air Force fighter pilots are excellent and fearless at that job, being fighter pilots. Unfortunately that skill set (as Stephen Coonts said "Balls the size of grapefruit and brains the size of a pea" doesn't translate well into the airline cockpit. The complete mission focus, lack of need for CRM, passenger comfort, storm avoidance, "delay until ready", "safety first" etc etc needs to be refocused into the world of airlines. For many years Korean fighter pilots didn't get that focus translation when they joined KAL or Asiana. Now as far as is possible within any airline, they do. Or at least that need is recognised.
I imagine any airline that took on fighter pilots without transition training into the airline culture would get into trouble.
Algie
From what I understand the ROK Air Force fighter pilots are excellent and fearless at that job, being fighter pilots. Unfortunately that skill set (as Stephen Coonts said "Balls the size of grapefruit and brains the size of a pea" doesn't translate well into the airline cockpit. The complete mission focus, lack of need for CRM, passenger comfort, storm avoidance, "delay until ready", "safety first" etc etc needs to be refocused into the world of airlines. For many years Korean fighter pilots didn't get that focus translation when they joined KAL or Asiana. Now as far as is possible within any airline, they do. Or at least that need is recognised.
I imagine any airline that took on fighter pilots without transition training into the airline culture would get into trouble.
Algie
I would take a Western fighter pilot without transition training over a cadet (without any real training at all) next to me in the flight deck any day, more-so if there is a serious emergency to be dealt with. The very skills that make a pilot a good fighter pilot also make them a good airline pilot: the ability to think under pressure, able to think in four dimensions, able to adapt quickly to a changing environment, ability to coordinate crew members (that may not necessarily be in the same aircraft), and good stick and rudder skills.
The real stand out examples in my career of airline pilots with poor CRM, mission focus, poor decision making skills, poor airmanship, and lack of customer focus were not fighter pilots. To put that in perspective though, and to recognise that 'no organisation has a monopoly on F-wits', one of the most stand out poor pilots I know eventually made it to be the CO of the RAAF VIP squadron in the early 90s
The real stand out examples in my career of airline pilots with poor CRM, mission focus, poor decision making skills, poor airmanship, and lack of customer focus were not fighter pilots. To put that in perspective though, and to recognise that 'no organisation has a monopoly on F-wits', one of the most stand out poor pilots I know eventually made it to be the CO of the RAAF VIP squadron in the early 90s
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA have been operating a cadet scheme since the 60's and there is no regional flying to build up "experience" in the UK.
Their cadets go into the RHS of a jet straight away and they don't seem to be having any issues...
Isn't this the same?
Their cadets go into the RHS of a jet straight away and they don't seem to be having any issues...
Isn't this the same?
Here's a bit more fuel for the debate from planetalking:
AF447 disaster will dog air safety arguments in 2012 | Plane Talking
AF447 disaster will dog air safety arguments in 2012 | Plane Talking
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Not Brisbane
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I do remember, though I don't have it in front of me right now, that in my 2nd Edition of "Handling the Big Jets" which I received 40 years back, the author Davies of the UK CAA advocated airlines using small jet trainers (presumably of the Macchi/Hawk/Gnat variety) to keep airline pilots up with their basic "edge of envelope" handling skills. I do know that Alitalia had 4 MB-326D trainers presumably for that purpose in the 60s and 70s.
Davies probably knew more about basic and advanced handling techniques and issues than anyone before or since. Yet his advice has never been taken on. And who ignored it? Almost by definition, people who knew less than him!! Heavy jet simulators simply cannot, at the "edges" replicate exactly what happens. In Australia a targeted recurrent (6 monthly) training programme could be outsourced (to a special RAAF PC-9 training squadron or BAE or similar) at probably $15,000 a year for 2 X 1 day ground school then 2 X 2hr sessions in a PC-9 simulator then 2 X 2hr session in the aircraft. That might cost Qantas/Jetstar say $35 million a year but what a bang for the buck that would give this whole sorry issue!! Probably pay for itself in reduced insurance premiums.
A wistful thought maybe......but much of my career was defined by issues covered in "Handling the Big Jets", either because they were ignored, or because they worked.....and its not too late to get something right.
Algie
Davies probably knew more about basic and advanced handling techniques and issues than anyone before or since. Yet his advice has never been taken on. And who ignored it? Almost by definition, people who knew less than him!! Heavy jet simulators simply cannot, at the "edges" replicate exactly what happens. In Australia a targeted recurrent (6 monthly) training programme could be outsourced (to a special RAAF PC-9 training squadron or BAE or similar) at probably $15,000 a year for 2 X 1 day ground school then 2 X 2hr sessions in a PC-9 simulator then 2 X 2hr session in the aircraft. That might cost Qantas/Jetstar say $35 million a year but what a bang for the buck that would give this whole sorry issue!! Probably pay for itself in reduced insurance premiums.
A wistful thought maybe......but much of my career was defined by issues covered in "Handling the Big Jets", either because they were ignored, or because they worked.....and its not too late to get something right.
Algie
PPRuNe Handmaiden
T-vasis Yes, it's true BA have been offering a cadet scheme off and on since the 60s. They still recruit pilots from a variety of back grounds too.
BA used to send their cadets to fly turboprops and other regional aircraft to get some more experience. Also, their cadet schemes of old were a different animal to their new cadet scheme which they have just been interviewing for.
Europe as flown by the airlines is a fairly easy place to fly versus Australia. (Nearly 100% Radar environment, SIDS, STARS, ILSs)
I don't know how the Jetstar scheme works WRT being released on the line and what airports/approaches they can go to.
The old scheme BA would pay for the cadet's training. I believe it had a pretty high wash out rate (versus other full time schemes). The cadet would pay for it with a lower income for a few years post training.
BA used to send their cadets to fly turboprops and other regional aircraft to get some more experience. Also, their cadet schemes of old were a different animal to their new cadet scheme which they have just been interviewing for.
Europe as flown by the airlines is a fairly easy place to fly versus Australia. (Nearly 100% Radar environment, SIDS, STARS, ILSs)
I don't know how the Jetstar scheme works WRT being released on the line and what airports/approaches they can go to.
The old scheme BA would pay for the cadet's training. I believe it had a pretty high wash out rate (versus other full time schemes). The cadet would pay for it with a lower income for a few years post training.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The Land Downunder
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Redsnail has hit the nail on the head, flying almost anywhere else in the world is a very relaxed easy environment compared to Australia. Australia is a true 3rd world country when it comes to ATC, NAV Facilities, Procedures etc. The worst thing about it is that the ozzie authorities are too busy patting themselves on the back about knowing how to do things properly whilst the rest of the world has its head in the sand to notice just how crap and quite frankly dangerous the Australian environment has become.
This does put an increased expectation on the Cadet pilot, one thing I noticed when doing my first round of line training in Oz was that you spend 99% of the time focussing on complicated procedures like f**ken CTA steps and CTAF's that you don't have time to just concentrate on flying the aircraft. I can honestly say that after flying A320's all over the world for almost 10 years before returning to Oz that after my line training I felt like I had become a worse pilot because the training was so confused and all over the place. Thankfully I had the ability just to chew up and spit out some of the rubbish that I was being fed, unfortunately for the cadets they don't have this option. Lets put this in perspective, my first airline in the UK had the grand total of 10 sectors + 2 sectors for test as your line training allowance as a new pilot on the jet fleet coming from turboprops, the line training from start to finish took 5 days. At the end 99% of the trainees pass without incident. Cadets were afforded the luxury of 20-30 sectors or approx 2 weeks and once again 99% of people passed. This is just not possible in Oz and there perhaps needs to be some recognition that Australia is not the place for cadet schemes.
This does put an increased expectation on the Cadet pilot, one thing I noticed when doing my first round of line training in Oz was that you spend 99% of the time focussing on complicated procedures like f**ken CTA steps and CTAF's that you don't have time to just concentrate on flying the aircraft. I can honestly say that after flying A320's all over the world for almost 10 years before returning to Oz that after my line training I felt like I had become a worse pilot because the training was so confused and all over the place. Thankfully I had the ability just to chew up and spit out some of the rubbish that I was being fed, unfortunately for the cadets they don't have this option. Lets put this in perspective, my first airline in the UK had the grand total of 10 sectors + 2 sectors for test as your line training allowance as a new pilot on the jet fleet coming from turboprops, the line training from start to finish took 5 days. At the end 99% of the trainees pass without incident. Cadets were afforded the luxury of 20-30 sectors or approx 2 weeks and once again 99% of people passed. This is just not possible in Oz and there perhaps needs to be some recognition that Australia is not the place for cadet schemes.
I doubt flying an Airbus around Australia is too hard.
But I do doubt if a low cost carrier such as Jetstar puts the effort into their cadet scheme to the extent that BA does. Or Qantas.
In reference to SID and STARS and wallowing around on them at 250kts. This is what I refer to as the "green line". Due lack of training, if you take a cadet off the green line they are lost. Where I am, Cadets are not competent in visual approaches or raw data flying ( especially self-positioning onto an approach ).
These are bread and butter skills. OK, you can create SOPS that don't don't require or have a need for these type of skills and consequently, make your operation less efficient. But industry wide, a lack of any experience with these type of skills lends toward the disaster. And we are seeing that with the recently realized pilot loss of control phenomenon. Yet, Airbus has had a problem for some time in this area with a supposedly simple handling aircraft. Three crashes on Go Around and I would imagine many, many close calls.
But I do doubt if a low cost carrier such as Jetstar puts the effort into their cadet scheme to the extent that BA does. Or Qantas.
In reference to SID and STARS and wallowing around on them at 250kts. This is what I refer to as the "green line". Due lack of training, if you take a cadet off the green line they are lost. Where I am, Cadets are not competent in visual approaches or raw data flying ( especially self-positioning onto an approach ).
These are bread and butter skills. OK, you can create SOPS that don't don't require or have a need for these type of skills and consequently, make your operation less efficient. But industry wide, a lack of any experience with these type of skills lends toward the disaster. And we are seeing that with the recently realized pilot loss of control phenomenon. Yet, Airbus has had a problem for some time in this area with a supposedly simple handling aircraft. Three crashes on Go Around and I would imagine many, many close calls.
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 27th Dec 2011 at 23:58.
I would take a Western fighter pilot without transition training over a cadet (without any real training at all) next to me in the flight deck any day, more-so if there is a serious emergency to be dealt with. The very skills that make a pilot a good fighter pilot also make them a good airline pilot: the ability to think under pressure, able to think in four dimensions, able to adapt quickly to a changing environment, ability to coordinate crew members (that may not necessarily be in the same aircraft), and good stick and rudder skills.
The real stand out examples in my career of airline pilots with poor CRM, mission focus, poor decision making skills, poor airmanship, and lack of customer focus were not fighter pilots. To put that in perspective though, and to recognise that 'no organisation has a monopoly on F-wits', one of the most stand out poor pilots I know eventually made it to be the CO of the RAAF VIP squadron in the early 90s
The real stand out examples in my career of airline pilots with poor CRM, mission focus, poor decision making skills, poor airmanship, and lack of customer focus were not fighter pilots. To put that in perspective though, and to recognise that 'no organisation has a monopoly on F-wits', one of the most stand out poor pilots I know eventually made it to be the CO of the RAAF VIP squadron in the early 90s
Gnadenburg
From what I understand the ROK Air Force fighter pilots are excellent and fearless at that job, being fighter pilots. Unfortunately that skill set (as Stephen Coonts said "Balls the size of grapefruit and brains the size of a pea" doesn't translate well into the airline cockpit. The complete mission focus, lack of need for CRM, passenger comfort, storm avoidance, "delay until ready", "safety first" etc etc needs to be refocused into the world of airlines. For many years Korean fighter pilots didn't get that focus translation when they joined KAL or Asiana. Now as far as is possible within any airline, they do. Or at least that need is recognised.
I imagine any airline that took on fighter pilots without transition training into the airline culture would get into trouble.
Algie
From what I understand the ROK Air Force fighter pilots are excellent and fearless at that job, being fighter pilots. Unfortunately that skill set (as Stephen Coonts said "Balls the size of grapefruit and brains the size of a pea" doesn't translate well into the airline cockpit. The complete mission focus, lack of need for CRM, passenger comfort, storm avoidance, "delay until ready", "safety first" etc etc needs to be refocused into the world of airlines. For many years Korean fighter pilots didn't get that focus translation when they joined KAL or Asiana. Now as far as is possible within any airline, they do. Or at least that need is recognised.
I imagine any airline that took on fighter pilots without transition training into the airline culture would get into trouble.
Algie
Gents,
I don't want to move away from the topic by discussing the merits of military training. My concern is the convenience where industry leaders are comparing military training with commercially driven cadet schemes.
They are justifying a training program dangerously pushing the minimums to drive a commercial benefit versus an incredibly expensive military flight training program. This view needs to be smashed.
Algie
My experience with non-Western military pilots has been eye opening. Egyptian and Bulgarian ex-MIG drivers topping the incompetence charts equally. Why did we ever fear the Red Army? Koreans I have heard the issues second hand.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The Land Downunder
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly right, in Europe and the States it is very very unlikely that in the normal course of things you will have to deviate from the green line. This means that the new pilot has time to 'think' about the aircraft and what it is doing. I am still unsure how much training value is involved in a Melbourne - Launceston sector where you end up with a cross between a DME/GPS and Visual arrival off the back of a 25 minute sector where you haven't even had the change to brief. Airbus went a long way to make flying the aircraft simple but when you then throw in stupid SOP's like 250kts by 5000 and 210kts by 3000 you start confusing the situation. I would argue that the airbus was not designed to be flown in Airspace where descents are interrupted by wacko CTA steps that mean instead of flying it like a jet transport aircraft should be flown you have to dirty up just to achieve an unrealistic profile whilst achieving unrealistic speeds. The question perhaps that should be asked is why are these high performance aircraft mixing it with GA at non-controlled sh*t pot little airports whilst trying to fly the thing like a big 172.
I doubt flying an Airbus around Australia is too hard.
I think the issue is that if the Captain has to worry about all of the above and then additionally has to keep a very keen eye on the FO due to lack of experience major things can be missed due to overload.
Additional to all that there are some control zones that don't even fit into a jet profile!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I have had both RAAF and GA pilots next to me on unlimited occasions as F/O's and both have performed as one would expect, some of us senior blokes used to get a bit testy with some ex RAAF blokes who were the "ace of the base". Yes, they knew it all, yes, we were lucky to have them, yes, if it were not for this damn nbrs thing they would have been or should have been the CP by now, in fact a few were downright a pain in the arse. Yes they could fly, and were good to have around, but then so were so many GA blokes who had come thru the school of hard knocks. It all boils down to the bloke/girl themselves, give me the steady, cool, unpretentious one every time, but NEVER a 300 hr cadet, who belongs on the jump seat, for quite some time yet.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: oz
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off topic a little but thought I would share. Walked into the cockpit of an SQ 744 or 777 (can't recall which) with a 2man crew some time back. Skipper was an expat(aussie) and FO a very green looking singaporean(assumed). I got to listen to the very professional and impressive to me at least pre flt briefing, until, at the end the skipper said if we have any problems at all just sit there and don't touch a thing, I will do everything. Rattled me a bit to think what would happen if the skipper swallowed a chicken bone or developed chest pain. Am I right in guessing this idea of inexperience in the cockpit has been around some time and oz is only now catching up on "worlds best practice"?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question perhaps that should be asked is why are these high performance aircraft mixing it with GA at non-controlled sh*t pot little airports whilst trying to fly the thing like a big 172.
Just ask CASA, ASA & Qantas. They, between them, know it all.
There is no simple solution. I draw your attention to Turkish airlines 738 flight 1951 which stalled on approach into amsterdam. Captain pilot not flying ex military with 5000 hrs on F4's. FO 4000hr pilot flying conducting line training. Safety pilot in the jump seat.
ATS went into retard mode due to faulty rad alt on captains side. No one noticed till stick shaker that speed was ref - 40.
Who's at fault. FO? The captain as pilot monitoring or safety dude for saying or seeing nothing. There's no insurance against incompetence.
ATS went into retard mode due to faulty rad alt on captains side. No one noticed till stick shaker that speed was ref - 40.
Who's at fault. FO? The captain as pilot monitoring or safety dude for saying or seeing nothing. There's no insurance against incompetence.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 49
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
AH
I'm hearing you but full back stick from cruise to crash (apart from a brief reprieve) does not inspire confidence, it shows complete lack of basic flying skills.
I will judge this incident in hindsight and I will say they were totally incompetant, ffs its pretty obvious mate..
I'm hearing you but full back stick from cruise to crash (apart from a brief reprieve) does not inspire confidence, it shows complete lack of basic flying skills.
I will judge this incident in hindsight and I will say they were totally incompetant, ffs its pretty obvious mate..
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That OzSync character can't be a real pilot..far too reasoned and sensible ..surely no place for the likes of him or her in aviation!!
I imagine any airline that took on fighter pilots without transition training into the airline culture would get into trouble.
Any pilot be he ex military, ex floatplane, ex night freight, ex corporate or ex RFDS, undergoes a type rating course on the airliner he will fly. That course includes the principles of CRM. Included on that type rating course are numerous briefings. In other words the course is an integral part of the so called `transition training` into the airline culture. Where is the problem that you imagine specifically with former fighter pilots? It certainly did not exist in my experience.
In the small Central Pacific airline I was privileged to join many years ago, most pilots were ex military including several of the senior captains who were former fighter pilots or jet bomber pilots. One had flown F4 Phantoms from aircraft carriers during the Vietnam war while one was a helicopter pilot in the same war. Another had flown the F111, as well as the Phantom. Two were former Mirage and Sabre pilots that were in aerobatic teams. One had even flown P51 Mustangs. The airline had an excellent flight safety record while operating into black hole approaches without ILS in Pacific atolls.
Thread Starter
AH:
Because the effing Government has sold every airport they can and isn't building any new ones.
The question perhaps that should be asked is why are these high performance aircraft mixing it with GA at non-controlled sh*t pot little airports whilst trying to fly the thing like a big 172.