"Cadet" pilot or First Officer under training?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Cadet" pilot or First Officer under training?
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2016-046/
"Cadet Pilot" Is this the latest terminology by ATSB for a fully qualified type rated crew member? First Officer (U/T) under training, would be a more accurate description.
With no co-pilot type rating training under Part 61, is simulator training for the A320 certified to command standard or to a different level for cadet pilots?
One Hong Kong operator uses the term "Second Officer" as equivalent of cadet - if indeed that person is a newly graduated CPL
"Cadet Pilot" Is this the latest terminology by ATSB for a fully qualified type rated crew member? First Officer (U/T) under training, would be a more accurate description.
With no co-pilot type rating training under Part 61, is simulator training for the A320 certified to command standard or to a different level for cadet pilots?
One Hong Kong operator uses the term "Second Officer" as equivalent of cadet - if indeed that person is a newly graduated CPL
Last edited by sheppey; 4th Sep 2017 at 13:29.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2016-046/
"Cadet Pilot" Is this the latest terminology by ATSB for a fully qualified type rated crew member? First Officer (U/T) under training, would be a more accurate description.
"Cadet Pilot" Is this the latest terminology by ATSB for a fully qualified type rated crew member? First Officer (U/T) under training, would be a more accurate description.
With no co-pilot type rating training under Part 61, is simulator training for the A320 certified to command standard or to a different level for cadet pilots?
I don't have any idea why the ATSB decided to refer to the PF in this incident as a "cadet" when it wasn't necessary.
Last edited by dr dre; 4th Sep 2017 at 05:09.
Plenty of tailstrikes have happened in this country with experienced pilots at the controls.
Here's two:
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/aair/ao-2008-074/
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...aair200403868/
This was more because of the design of the controls of the Airbus and maybe a poor training system than the amount of hours the pilot had before flying a transport category aircraft. This was the PF's first rotation of the jet, how would having thousands of hours in light aircraft have made a pilot invulnerable to overrotation in a fly by wire jet with side sticks that they had never flown before?
Last edited by dr dre; 4th Sep 2017 at 04:44.
This was more because of the design of the controls of the Airbus and maybe a poor training system than the amount of hours the pilot had before flying a transport category aircraft. This was the PF's first rotation of the jet, how would having thousands of hours in light aircraft have made a pilot invulnerable to overrotation in a fly by wire jet with side sticks that they had never flown before?
As for pilot experience helping, I completely disagree with what you're saying. A pilot with experience will more likely pick up on the rapid rotation rate earlier in the piece and arrest it. Also, when you've got plenty of experience, you're more likely to be smoother and more controlled with your control inputs.
Cadets appear to be here to stay, but to say they're just as safe as an experienced direct entry FO is a long stretch.
morno
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: The Outback
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Utter bollocks. The Airbus system is only a problem for those that don't want to accept it and adjust to it.
As for pilot experience helping, I completely disagree with what you're saying. A pilot with experience will more likely pick up on the rapid rotation rate earlier in the piece and arrest it. Also, when you've got plenty of experience, you're more likely to be smoother and more controlled with your control inputs.
Cadets appear to be here to stay, but to say they're just as safe as an experienced direct entry FO is a long stretch.
morno
As for pilot experience helping, I completely disagree with what you're saying. A pilot with experience will more likely pick up on the rapid rotation rate earlier in the piece and arrest it. Also, when you've got plenty of experience, you're more likely to be smoother and more controlled with your control inputs.
Cadets appear to be here to stay, but to say they're just as safe as an experienced direct entry FO is a long stretch.
morno
Cadets appear to be here to stay, but to say they're just as safe as an experienced direct entry FO is a long stretch.
Also, when you've got plenty of experience, you're more likely to be smoother and more controlled with your control inputs.
the report indicates that he didn't see the birds either... but the other 2 did...good CRM from the cabin but pretty average that the tailstrike suspected was not reported to ATC given potential for runway FOD to following aircraft...
Well here's the other report I meant to post, plus I found more on the ATSB website with some very experienced crews at the helm, meaning any one of us are susceptible to it at any time:
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2008-074/
The report probably refers to the crew member as being a cadet pilot because thats the training path the pilot has undertaken and as such, what their rank is referred to within the company for the first 12 months.
So whilst I'd agree it's an F/O under training, I would have thought the ATSB would refer somewhat to the terms used within the initial report from the operator?
So whilst I'd agree it's an F/O under training, I would have thought the ATSB would refer somewhat to the terms used within the initial report from the operator?
This incident was not the only one at Jetstar that involved a cadet under training. One of the weaknesses of the Jetstar cadet program was that the last cadets to finish their ab-initio were told to go do their own thing until Jetstar started hiring again. Some went to the industry and came back to Jetstar 2 years later as very competent pilots. Some went back to their previous non-flying jobs. When they were recalled to start training they were well and truly out of currency. Imagine learning to fly then two years later your next flight in an actual aircraft was a domestic jet! Whatever the reason was for the rapid rotation it was the lack of experience that was a significant factor. Was it the cadet's "fault"? Partly because he was he one on the controls but it is also Jetstar's fault for just assuming that the gap in training was of no consequence. During that same period another Jetstar 320 had a hard landing with a cadet flying and two flight attendants had such severe back injuries that after twelve months they are still getting medical attention. At the very least Jetstar should have done some base training with this batch of cadets and not relied just on the simulator.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would assume if the training for any other pilot in a certified simulator gets you a command endorsement on type then I can't see why it shouldn't be any different if you happened to have trained via a cadet program.
My experience of a person being trained in a simulator to a standard sufficient to let them go straight on line with the aircraft only applied to people who already had considerable flying experience, e.g. B747 Classic to B747-400.
If anyone thinks a cadet fresh out of flying school in the right seat is just as safe as an experienced direct entry FO, they need their head read.
Yes, it's done all over the the world. Yes, it's a way to bring new pilots into an operation. Yes, with the right systems and training the risks can be minimised. However, there are still risks.
That is why we gain experience from our mistakes and learn and become better.
If you could train and then be an expert at something, there'd be no need for master craftsman, you'd be able compete professionally at any sport after reading a book and taking a few lessons. We wouldn't need experienced tradies or scientists.
In the real world, you become better the more you are exposed to something and the more you practice.
Cadets makes good pilots, however it takes time. Lot of mistakes and the lessons learned accumulating experience making good future pilots and eventually captains.
Yes, it's done all over the the world. Yes, it's a way to bring new pilots into an operation. Yes, with the right systems and training the risks can be minimised. However, there are still risks.
That is why we gain experience from our mistakes and learn and become better.
If you could train and then be an expert at something, there'd be no need for master craftsman, you'd be able compete professionally at any sport after reading a book and taking a few lessons. We wouldn't need experienced tradies or scientists.
In the real world, you become better the more you are exposed to something and the more you practice.
Cadets makes good pilots, however it takes time. Lot of mistakes and the lessons learned accumulating experience making good future pilots and eventually captains.
A real Cadetship has a very stringent selection criteria that only takes the top percentage of applicants and trains them to high standard. You can argue all day about what specific programs fit that definition but those ones operated by ME don't.
So you are saying that after 2 years of doing what ever he was recalled to Jetsar, and on his first day at work he was put in an A320 and given the controls?
That would have to be one of the stupidest comments I have read on the site. Typical of the current generation, "it is always someone else's fault, not mine".
That would have to be one of the stupidest comments I have read on the site. Typical of the current generation, "it is always someone else's fault, not mine".
Cadets makes good pilots, however it takes time. Lot of mistakes and the lessons learned accumulating experience making good future pilots and eventually captains.
