Jetstar Cadet Scheme Failing To Produce Safe Pilots?
 

I think it's now official. We are one heart attack away from losing an aircraft because Jetstar "cadets" appear to be incompetent at landing an aircraft. This incident is in addition to the one the ATSB just reported. God knows how many others have been glossed over.

I want two fully trained and demonstrated competent pilots in the cockpit, not just one Captain and a "Learner".

Simple fix.

Implement recommendation #1 from the Senate inquiry, and implement it NOW!

Hello Canberra, your worst nightmare is just around the corner! :}

When you are taught by green instructors who themselves were taught by green instructors, you will get students who are missing alot of vital knowledge that can only be taught by someone with the appropriate industry experience.

For a cadet to be taught properly the instructors have to be older guys and girls who come back to instructing after a career of flying around outside the training area. Just the way the Airforce does it.

Spot on truckie. Spot on.:D:D

Two sides to every story;

Jetstar procedures as to configuration changes and checking thereof by other crew members?

Did; or if not why not?: the pilot flying check/observe the configuration change called for was correctly set at the time of configuration change?

Not a criticism of Jetstar procedures as I do not know them but I do understand cockpit procedures and that from time to time, regardless of crew experience, things break down or do not happen as they should.

Seizing upon such incidents without the full story promoting a cause belittles the promoters destroying the credibiltiy of their cause.

In the `real world' pilots are fed into airline flight decks daily with minmal experience levels (some 250 - 500hours [the same as maintenance is done overseas]) and yes incidients happen but the deserts & oceans of the world are not littered with carbon fibre & aluminium!

Lets hope a Jetstar Captain does not become incapacitated in flight leaving a very green FO to bring it home.

It really is not working and I believe is grossly unfair on both the Cadet and the Captains.

What a load of crap Sunfish. This was one incident involving a cadet. The other incident in Darwin involved someone who met all of the requirements of the the FAA imposed hours requirements and should therefore be "safe". Configuration cockups have been going on for many, many years involving pilots with enormous experience. Anyone remember a B146 nearly pancaking on a beach north of Cairns?

I am amazed that professionals who work in the industry jump on these Safety reports to try and prove a point. If anything undermines a Safety Culture wouldn't it be the fear of some disgruntled cock publicising something you self-reported?

In all of this crap there is possibly a bigger point being missed that Dark Knight has mentioned. Surely this is more serious?

Can someone clear something up for me please? The media and people in this thread keep referring to the co-pilot as a cadet. I'm guessing that's because he came through a Jetstar cadet scheme (he apparently had around 1600 hours prior to his 300 on the A320).

Is it fair to the co-pilot (and perhaps Jetstar) to keep calling him a cadet? Or is it a Jetstar cadetship requirement to acquire somewhat more than 300 hours on type before the they can do away with the "cadet" designation? If that's the case then so be it.

It just seems to me that the media are jumping on "cadet" to give punters the impression that the co-pilot was a just-out-of-school kid who had no real idea of what he was doing. He may well have blotted his copy book on this occasion and will have to face the consequences including one would assume a fair degree of embarrassment. But do we really need to humiliate him further by insisting he's a cadet if in fact he's not?

dghob, I retired with >20k hours after a 40-year career and was still regarded by some as a cadet. There are a few jokes around about once being something or conducting an action and that name sticks!:eek:

G'day ;)

The goat ****er?

Hmmm. The mind boggles.

Had some experience in a previous life flying with cadets from a major airline gaining industry experience in a type much smaller than the A320. The majority operated to a high procedural standard when the conditions were fine but quickly became 'situationally challenged' when faced with adverse wx or approaches requiring additional planning and preparation. As with any supervisory/training role knowing your own limits and how far to let someone else take the aircraft to a point where you can recover a bad picture is the key. This is where I think the training system in Jetstar is letting these Captains down if these cadets are out there requiring supervision above and beyond what would be considered normal in an Experienced RPT two pilot crew. I can sympathize with the extra workload being placed on the Captain in this incident and in fact all the Jetstar Captains who have to operate in this environment. To his credit he did get the aircraft out of a bad position and safely back on the ground. To quote BB during the senate enquiry, 'Our cadets are only flying with our most experienced Captains' Thank f#%k for that. I thought this was RPT not SPI (Single Pilot Interuptions).

Doomsday clock keeps counting down 10,9,8,7,6......
 

It'd be nice if people took pride in passing on their knowledge, rather than belittling the abilities and background of those in the seat next to them.

You didn't become 'the Orcale' all by yourself you know!:rolleyes:

If a Captain keels over in flight I'm fairly sure the aircraft will be landed safely, so long as they remember to ask for the into wind runway.;)

Agreed HH!

However some of these new RH Seater's seem to know it all already, and don't want your 'knowledge'.

Gen Y :ugh:

Fair point, it is a two way street! The guy/gal sitting next to you does have to want to learn.:ok:

I can't determine whether my observations are objective or not, as I was a youngish F/O and am now an older Captain.

In my younger days, I don't recall myself or my contemporaries being as adverse to hints, and helpful tidbits, as I witness in more modern times. :sad:

Worrying times gobbledock.

Have a look over at the Senate inquiry thread.

TICK TOCK indeed.:{

What you want and what you get are entirely two different things. All over the aviation industry nowadays especially in Asia and Europe and the Middle East (and that's just a start) you have a good chance of being flown with one captain flying single handedly but with the "support" of a learner with three bars, big watch and shiny new wings. Watch this space if the captain goes u/s with food poisoning...:eek: Even the captain has a good chance of not being "fully trained and demonstrated competent":(

You obviously have never flown in Indonesia where first officer pay-to-fly schemes are rife among even the largest of the many low cost carriers..

Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.

I saw a snippet of 'The Amazing Race' where the competing couples had to land a Learjet sim by following a script telling them when to put out the flaps and gear. They did pretty well considering no flying experience, one or two getting it down safely on the first attempt.
Just goes to show that just about anyone can do the basics. But what happens when its not all going your way? I guess that's when experience pays off.

Blind leading the blind. Lets hope these idiots dont take out 180 people!
Well done SLIC.

Thoughts on civilian pilot training in uk/eu:
 

There are similarities with LoCo operators in EU:

Clearly we are on the wrong track in terms of Flight Safety, Training pilots and in giving them progressive careers - in the UK/EU at least.

When USA Regulators are demanding more from their pilots in terms of experience (incl. 1500h rules post Colgan crash) in the EU and UK especially it is being lowered more and more. And this model is being exported worldwide.

The reason is cost and shareholder profits are seen as more important than pilot pay or ability:

1. Now many UK carriers are contracting out pilot supply to a few schools who sell them the MPL route to an FO position. These schemes (including approved or integrated cadet schemes) are funded by the applicant. That person's debt (often around EUR100,000 to 150,000) becomes an interest free bank account for the airline.

Terms and conditions of existing pilots are eroded (existing FOs are put on standby while cadets fly so lengthening time to get required hours for command). The 1000s of highly experienced pilots from the Military, GA or even turbo prop airlines cannot get an interview because it is cheaper to hire an MPL student on a short term contract.

2. Self Finded TRs and P2F (pay to fly): To make matters worse, paying for type ratings ( a business expense that airlines can offset against tax) is seen as normal. Here the pilot, not the business, takes on huge debts to fund the airline.

Some LoCo airlines even sell the RH front seat for around EURO 30,000 to give "line training" to wannabee pilots. This means working for them for 100 to 300 bours and then having no job at the end. Even some cadet/MPL/flexycrew schemes have given just 6 months "employment" where the cadet is paid back EURO 1000 a month of their own initial "investment" before having to return to a bar job to pay the bank loans. The treatment by some LoCo airlines of these workers is disgraceful.

3. As aircraft reliability has improved, so pilot professionalism has often taken on a downward spiral. An over reliance on automation has caused flying skills to wither. Almost 1900 deaths in Western jet Airliners over the past decade are down to Loss of Control.

4. Both P2F and Cadet/MPL schemes place greater pressure on existing Captains who often feel like they are flying single crew. P2F hour builders in particular can cause tensions in teh cockpit affecting CRM because the Captains do not agree with these schemes.

The lack of flying experience of cadets/P2F students is a result of being sent onto a B737/A320 sized jet before doing much real flying in Turboprops/Military/GA. In the past BA, Britannia and others sent their fully sponsored cadets to fly smaller machines (eg: MacAlpine HS125 Biz jets) for up to 2 years before flying larger airliners to get them air minded. Now with MPL there is not even a requirement for solo flying. Most cadets do Mutual flying - not true solo work during their short Light Aircraft courses.


The solution? (NB: more ideas most welcome but here are a few to consider):

1. Regulators should limit the number of cadets an airline can recruit each year - 20% of workforce at any one time rather than the current 60% of FOs for one UK LoCo.

2. Airlines should be encouraged to seek out a diverse pilot demographic and encourage junior pilot apprenticeship schemes with each other so that cadets can work on Turboprops/light jets or even instructing with approved schools before joining the main jet fleets.

3. P2F and Self Funded TRs should be banned under Regulator laws. The Airlines should fund training after frozen ATPL/ATP. Pilots should be bonded for 2 to 3 years per TR and all airlines should have a database of bonding agreements within EU/US/Oz to prevent early leavers going after a year without paying something for their training.

4. All pilots should be given Upset recovery training (not just Sim Tests) in real aerobatic aircraft at least once a year.

5. Automation airmanship courses should be introduced on an annual basis by Airbus/Boeing/etc. Note Bombardier already does something (Free to attend!): Safety Standdown: Aviation Safety Seminars and Online Resources | Safety Standdown

That has basically always been the case Tee Emm, we all had to start some where. But the difference is in the training. Like everything else it has become politically correct, treat people nicely, let them decide how much they want to learn and how quickly. In my training days, it was hurled manuals, accompanied by language that would make a sailor blush, and you became used to being called a stupid pr%ck. In fact when they were pleasant, you wondered what was going on. This of course was from the hard schools, the Skippers that had been Bomber Command pilots, they had short fuses if you stuffed up in anyway, and we learnt quickly and surprisingly efficiently, and if you didn't, you were out. Abhorrent now of course, but it seems to me the middle road has not been met, discipline, lack of "paddock bashing flying" (nothing teaches you better than the aircraft itself), and gives you the basis for that other lost word "Airmanship". It seems to me the standards and safety that were developed over the last eighty years are in danger of being somewhat decimated into the future. The end result will not be pleasant.

There are many, many more incidents involving cadets.
In true Jetstar tradition you will never hear about them.
Jetstar + self regulation is a bad combination but now we have Jetstar + self regulation + cadet:ugh::ugh:

What is the name of that truck driving school

angelorange that is an extremely well thought and well summarised post!:D

Where were you when the Senate Inquiry was on....oh I forgot the Eurozone...more's the pity! Could you possibly send your thoughts to Senator X or Senator Heffernan, might help them to see what we in Oz will become....and giving them solutions is also a good thing!:ok:

Food for thought
 

Report: Garuda B733 at Malang on Jul 22nd 2011, hard landing

By Simon Hradecky, created Wednesday, Dec 14th 2011 11:32Z, last updated Wednesday, Dec 14th 2011 11:32Z (The Aviation Herald)

A Garuda Indonesia Boeing 737-300, registration PK-GGO performing flight GA-292 from Jakarta to Malang (Indonesia) with 108 passengers and 8 crew, performed a VOR approach to Malang's runway 35 visually circling to runway 17, however, the aircraft got too high on the approach and turned in too early on base to runway 17 struggeling to acquire the extended runway and glidepath. The aircraft subsequently touched down hard prompting the tower controller to inquire the possbility of a hard landing with the crew. The aircraft was instructed to stop at the end of runway 17 and hold pending a runway inspection, which revealed some metal debris in the touch down zone of runway 17. The aircraft subsequently was cleared to backtrack the runway to taxi to the apron. No injuries occurred, the aircraft received substantial damage including wrinkles of the left wing, a fractured nose wheel hub and damage to the left engine inlet.

Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee (NTSC) released their preliminary report reporting, that the training captain (46, ATPL, 14,197 hours total, 5,275 hours on type) was pilot monitoring, trainee first officer #2 (28, CPL, 457 hours total, 457 hours on type) was pilot flying, trainee first officer #1 (33, CPL, 206 hours total, 206 hours on type) was occupying the observer's seat.

Flight GA-292 was number 3 in the arrival sequence to Malang and therefore had been sent into a high level VOR holding for runway 35, active runway was 35.

After the two preceding arrivals had landed, the tower changed the runway to 17 because winds had changed to southerly at 10-15 knots. GA-292 was instructed to leave the VOR holding and commence a VOR let down to runway 35 circling visually to runway 17. After completing the let down the aircraft joined a right downwind for runway 17, turned onto base. When the first officer initiated the turn onto final, the captain assessed that the aircraft was too high for the approach and the turn was too early bringing the aircraft tracking right off the extended center line, and took control of the aircraft. The captain increased rate of descent to acquire the glidepath while at the same time trying to align the aircraft with the extended center line.

The aircraft finally touched down in the touch down zone of runway 17 and rolled down to the runway end to do a 180 degrees turn to backtrack the runway to the apron.

While taxiing down the runway the controller inquired about the possibility of a hard landing, which the captain replied to in the positive. The controller therefore instructed the aircraft to hold before taxiing down runway 35 and had the runway inspected. The runway inspection found metal debris in the touch down zone of runway 17.

After about 10 minutes holding the aircraft was cleared to taxi down runway 35 and to the apron, where passengers disembarked normally.

A post flight inspection found wrinkles to the left hand wing, the nose wheel inner hub was fractured and the left engine inlet cowling was damaged.

How many years will this cadet have to work for this airline at a reduced wage to pay for this.

Someone want to explain that one to me?

Are they doing "Straight and level" in a 737?

I can't believe an airline with pilots of that experience are allowed to fly into Australia by CAS.....

Oh wait, yes I can:rolleyes:

737 simulator, more likely due to cost. I suspect the first time they end up at the pointy end of a 737 is on a revenue flight :yuk:

One sincerely hopes that the sort of screaming skull former RAF pilots who hurl manuals at frightened students has not carried over to your personal methods of instruction. Not all military pilots carry on like that. There are nutters (military and civil trained) in every flying organisation and your experience proves it.

The worst I ever struck in my 737 career was a Boeing instructor pilot from Seattle. Although that was nigh 30 years ago, at a recent reunion we discussed striking a campaign medal for all those pilots who had flown more than 50 hours with that instructor. It was to be called the "Menen Star" after the hotel on Nauru where we drank and lived.
It was also decided to add a "Clasp" to this medal for all pilots who had been grabbed around the throat by this Boeing check captain.

Despite Teresa's Green horrifying experience of having wartime pilots throwing manuals around the cockpit at him, I can assure him that breed of "instructor" has hopefully gone forever - in more ways than one. Keen and enthusiastic students can be destroyed by those idiots. I was lucky because one of my instructors was a former Lancaster bomber pilot with a DFC and a more gentle lovely instructor you be hard to find. Rest in Peace Syd Gooding old chap.

phantom menace has nailed it.

The reason, the only reason, Australian airlines employ Cadets is because,

They're... CHEAP!

There end'th the lesson for the investgators. :{

Australian worker priced himself out of manufacturing industry years ago.
Australian Pilots now pricing himself out of airline industry.
Sure plenty of asian man and chinese man to fly aircraft into Australia at not much money.
Air Nuigini has maintenance in SE Asia, no problem and cheaper than Australian man doing same job.
Maybe you need new type of job.
McDonalds has plenti??

I guess that counts you out Manki. You'll need at least level 4 English. Might work out ok for you in a Chinese laundry. Maybe they need to pay you a few more peanuts.

So my friend, what is the answer?

Where are these other jobs or do Australasian's need to get used to the standard of living as enjoyed in SE Asia?

Manki man :

In your own words then I am sure they can do the same in Papua New Guinea too :ouch: or perhaps they fear the astronomous levels of crime and corruption, and don't appeal to the low standard of living :eek:

As you say, then using your philosphy, they can get pilots from SE Asia too :ouch:

Maybe you need a new type of Job ?
McDonalds perhaps ? :eek:
Sorry, I just remembered PNG does not have the McDonalds :uhoh:, whilst over 120 other countries do. PNG will probably be the last country in the world to get it, how advanced ? :confused:
Perhaps then Big Rooster for you. :p

You forgot compliant old fella :hmm:

Sori for upsetting.
You men sure rude people in Australian Industry.
Asian man more polite yet than you.
Maybe you need to learn about corruption in Asia, they are laughing about you.
We people in PNG go to village and garden when no work, no wait for sit down money like Australian.

I'm not sure how compliance is an issue MACH082?

If you are suggesting that airlines employ cadets because they are compliant, then I think the bow you are drawing is a tad long.

You're either compliant, or you're not. I would suggest that any pilot (airline especially) that is not, would not be an airline pilot for very long. Cadet or otherwise.

As I said, the only reason Australian airlines employ cadets is because they are cheap. Compliance has nothing to do with it.

Anything else is pure nonsense! Or am I missing something?

Krusty I think you misunderstood his use of the word compliant.

com·pli·ant   /kəmˈplaɪənt/ Show Spelled[kuhm-plahy-uhnt]
adjective
1. complying; obeying, obliging, or yielding, especially in a submissive way: a man with a compliant nature.
2. manufactured or produced in accordance with a specified body of rules (usually used in combination): Energy Star-compliant computers.

I believe that what MACH may have meant is that they are obliging, yielding, submissive perhaps grateful of the job and so easily manipulated. When you are indentured to an employer for many years and vast sums of money it creates a situation where you are likely to do as you are told.

N'est-ce pas?