|
Good on you Dick for asking a simple valid question
Certainly did not have to venture too far to get answers good and bad |
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
(Post 10430974)
I don't know whether the rellos of the Ethiopian pax would agree...
|
Originally Posted by The Bullwinkle
(Post 10430989)
No issues??? :ugh: |
Originally Posted by wheels_down
(Post 10431362)
We haven’t reached that stage quite yet but it will probably bite in about 20 odd years when the majority of domestic captains retire, to be replaced with the current wave of cadets. Jetstar are now starting upgrades the initial batch of cadets. The experienced captain of the next few decades that have gone GA-Charter-Regional => Airbus/Boeing....will be few and far I’m afraid. |
Originally Posted by krismiler
(Post 10431531)
Think of a pyramid with Australia having a large number of pilots in smaller aircraft at the bottom and a small number in airliners at the top, in many countries that gets inverted.
And it’s not as if this is a thing that’s just happened recently. QF, Q-Link, VA, VARA, Rex, JQ, Ansett, Cobham, Maroomba, Airnorth, Sharp, Skippers, O’Connors, MacAir, are just some of the airlines in this country I can remember, past and present, who have put well selected and trained low houred pilots into Turboprops and Jets. They started doing this not recently, but over 50 years ago. |
Fixed wing pilot numbers with current medical at last financial year:
Air transport 7,304; Commercial 5,091; Commercial (CASA EX25/18)a 4,303; Private 9,004 |
Originally Posted by Ollie Onion
(Post 10431920)
Do tell, what are all the issues then caused by 200 hour FO’s that don’t have just as many corresponding occurrences with crews of higher experience? I await the comprehensive list. And it’s not as if this is a thing that’s just happened recently. QF, Q-Link, VA, VARA, Rex, JQ, Ansett, Cobham, Maroomba, Airnorth, Sharp, Skippers, O’Connors, MacAir, are just some of the airlines in this country I can remember, past and present, who have put well selected and trained low houred pilots into Turboprops and Jets. They started doing this not recently, but over 50 years ago. |
Yes, but what I am saying is that these types of incidents are not exclusive to low hour FO's, I have conducted plenty of investigations and the only 'Flap' lever movement in the wrong direction I have investigated was actioned by the Captain. There is no doubt that unfamiliarity with a type can lead to a greater number of mistakes, I don't see though how having 3000 hours in a tourist operation flying 172's lessens this risk on an A320 or a 737. New to type is new to type, think of all of those over 60 Captains that Air NZ basically sacked as they couldn't meet the minimum standards during their A320 line training, they went to court and lost, their experience didn't help them pass a course that a 200 hour cadet can pass. I just don't think you can say putting 200 hour pilots in the RHS is bad just because Australia is decades behind the rest of the world and people want to protect GA as that is where most of us come from.
|
Dr Dre, Cobham only recently allowed new hires to join without an ATPL. Before that they needed an active ATPL, 500 hrs multi and most had extensive turboprop command. |
Originally Posted by neville_nobody
(Post 10432011)
The vast majority of that list needed 3000 hours plus to get a job 30 years ago. Not uncommon to get nickled and dimed over what your experience consisted of too. 'Oh not enough night, not enough IFR, oh you haven't flown in real icing over here etc etc. When we’re talking about 250hr cadets in the right hand seats of turboprops and Jets we aren’t talking about grabbing random graduates fresh out of CPL training out of any old flying school. Tough selection processes, structured and appropriate training for multicrew ops, regular assessment of standards and structured line training is the name of the game. Europeans have been doing this for decades. And honestly it has been happening in Australia too on a smaller scale for longer than most seem to acknowledge. |
Originally Posted by gordonfvckingramsay
(Post 10431814)
Is the suggestion that airlines are pumping out cheap FOs as quickly as possible perplexing you? “Cheap FOs”? A new joiner is obviously paid less than a long serving one, it’s called pay scales, and Seniority! |
Now with the exponential growth of the airline sector this isn’t the case. Coupled with the exponential decline in conditions and viability of aviation as a career along with the slow death of GA in Australia. CessnaPete, the whole low hour RHS thing is geared to reducing future staff costs and nothing more. Firstly, airlines know that aspiring pilots will do anything to get into a jet immediately, including working for peanuts and being held in bondage for years. They also know that throwing a low time pilot in the right hand seat of a jet means they get cheap FOs and a cheap regular line Captain who will babysit/train them through the “early days” safe in the knowledge that the Captain retains strictly liability. Airlines also know that CASA readily falls for the “show us the accident stats” defence. Dick, the RHS experience levels are declining and I’m sure the travelling public are not even remotely aware, furthermore the airlines would never dream of revealing it. |
Why did FAA go the way they did? What were the repercussions? What does it mean now? (Yes I know the answers, just putting it out there as for some reason it does not seem to gain any momentum the discussion). As I said great for Aussies with the E3. |
Originally Posted by hoss
(Post 10431007)
About 20 years ago you needed about 5000 hours to get an interview with a regional..
If if you didn’t get picked up - it was a long slog through GA and into the regionals. If you stuck at it. The best you could hope for was link or hazos. Impulse etc. If you were pretty special, you may have got a look in at National Jet on the 146. They were very picky. Meaning a de orbit burn or two. Mostly you had to pay to progress. If you were lucky to make it that far. There were gigs overseas in dark corners and far flung places offering an airline version of GA. Renewable every 5 years or so with a new contract. After you managed the deorbit burns in Australia or managed to pay a lot of money for a type rating. The worlds changed, flying is more affordable and there’s more of it. So the opportunities came with it. I have no problem with a well trained 200 hour pilot in the right seat. You can’t tell the difference between them and a ex regional pilot after a few years. They may just be a little smarter due to the stricter vetting they went through to get there. It’s a different job flying a jet, especially a long haul one. It’s about knowing a lot of stuff about a lot of stuff. No disrespect to Captain Sherms old boy, but I believe they had a ‘little’ retention problem in the RAF back then. If you ticked the box, you flew it. If you came back, well done young chap. Now go out again. I couldn’t have done it. I loved my GA time. However, it did absolutely nothing for my airline flying. Well except it gave me a magic number to progress to the next level and some battle stories to tell. They’re that far embellished these days it’s hard to tell exactly what went on back then. I think maybe I just got better. In the stories anyway. Being on both sides of the fence, I can say the only ones who care deeply about cadets, are the ones who are not cadets, and the ones who have to do their airline conversion. If I had my time again I would have done a Cadetship in a heart beat and have been 1,000,000 dollars better off financially. |
The GG, each to their own! I wouldn’t trade my GA days for the world. Yes I feel belting around in a 210 having to make decisions has helped me in my airline and corporate career. |
Mid 1990s and I couldn't even get an interview for rhs turboprop despite having an ATPL 4000 hrs total with multi engine and turbine time. Late 1990s and GA employers were still paying below the award IF they gave you a job. Early 2000s, flew with a Westwind Captain who was willing to go back into the right seat of a Metroliner just to get into Kendall Airlines. Virgin Blue required you to pay for your own B737 rating. Things started improving around the mid 2000s at the lower end however paying for your endorsement is still with us.
Plenty of opportunities in Asia for experienced jet pilots with a decent type on their licence. |
Originally Posted by gordonfvckingramsay
(Post 10432095)
Coupled with the exponential decline in conditions and viability of aviation as a career along with the slow death of GA in Australia. CessnaPete, the whole low hour RHS thing is geared to reducing future staff costs and nothing more. Firstly, airlines know that aspiring pilots will do anything to get into a jet immediately, including working for peanuts and being held in bondage for years. They also know that throwing a low time pilot in the right hand seat of a jet means they get cheap FOs and a cheap regular line Captain who will babysit/train them through the “early days” safe in the knowledge that the Captain retains strictly liability. Airlines also know that CASA readily falls for the “show us the accident stats” defence. Dick, the RHS experience levels are declining and I’m sure the travelling public are not even remotely aware, furthermore the airlines would never dream of revealing it. You are missing the point. There is no pool of 'experienced' high hours jet rated F\Os to recruit from in UK/Europe, for the reasons posted before. Your stringently selected/competently trained and route mentored 250 hour pilots will become 1500 hour experienced, multi sector operators, after a couple of years, then everyone can be happy? In my part of the world if they don't reach the standards required they are rejected. You have to start somewhere. People continue to bang on about inexperienced, presumably ill trained, incompetent F/Os,in their employ, that's the airline training management fault. Worrying, if thats the case. Statistically for example BEA/BA has had no safety issues after many years of cadet recruitment. Ryanair (despite their less than glorious customer service reputation!!) operate hundreds of nearly new B737, every day. on thousands of sectors around Europe, some with new hire F/Os. Operating to some operationally demanding, less equipped, regional airports. Their safety record is second to none. |
Whether you’re flying left or right seat, I think, that there is an unspoken respect and comarade between Pilots when you know that they’ve shared a similar arduous path in staying alive in an aeroplane through some respectable period of time. If nothing more, I t’s a human factors aspect that shouldn’t be ignored. 200hr Pilots can be trained to do a job (I would’ve argued the same when I had mine), but if the requirement of the day is to have two Pilots flying the aircraft, then you can’t beat that couple thousand hours in GA before youre given the responsibility. |
Originally Posted by NOSIGN
(Post 10432496)
Whether you’re flying left or right seat, I think, that there is an unspoken respect and comarade between Pilots when you know that they’ve shared a similar arduous path in staying alive in an aeroplane through some respectable period of time. If nothing more, I t’s a human factors aspect that shouldn’t be ignored. Maybe a lot of people would bond more easily because of shared backgrounds or prior jobs or such, but that shouldn’t mean they don’t give the same level of professional respect to a pilot because they didn’t follow the same path into an airline that they did. If they do that’s a sign of poor character. |
Generally from my experience those from GA who come into regionals have a negative perception of ex cadets, and understandably thay comes from the GA echo chamber that cadets are jumping the queue and lack ability. Those views don't generally last once they realise the mountain every single pilot has to climb to get checked to line and that most of the LHS pilots are coming from the cadet stream.
|
Originally Posted by Vag277
(Post 10431990)
Fixed wing pilot numbers with current medical at last financial year:
Air transport 7,304; Commercial 5,091; Commercial (CASA EX25/18)a 4,303; Private 9,004 Is this further evidence of the well known decline in GA? |
Generally from my experience those from GA who come into regionals have a negative perception of ex cadets, and understandably thay comes from the GA echo chamber that cadets are jumping the queue and lack ability. |
Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34
(Post 10432963)
Interesting stats. I would have thought there would be fewer ATPLs than CPLs. Is this further evidence of the well known decline in GA? |
Are hours pretty much meaningless after a thousand hours or so?
If a 200hr company chosen and trained cadet has pretty much the same ability as a 1500hr CPL who gained the hours via GA, do hours really matter that much? I can understand that stick skills may reach a plateau after a while (providing the pilot remains current) but have always thought it is not so much hands on stick time but experience (and particularly command experience) that continues to grow with the log book hours and is inherently valuable, above hand skills (once the hand skills reach a suitable level). After 2-3000 hours, do more hours merely indicate seniority rather than experience and value as a pilot? Is it that modern transport aircraft do not really need that much skill and judgement in the RHS to safely operate and so we can happily let the pilot gain the hours and experience straight from there, ie actual FO experience isn't that important in the safe operation of the aircraft, you can put a low level (experience) person in there and let them gain what they need? . I would like to think there is more to a pilot's value than reaching a competency standard. You cannot put a 'competency level' against experience but to me, that doesn't make it unimportant. |
Originally Posted by neville_nobody
(Post 10433004)
The reason for that is your average GA pilot has taken exponentially more career/social/financial risk than any cadet will ever take, to basically get the same job and fly to the same standard. Which does lead to a level of bitterness or resentment amongst some pilots.
Unlike those pesky Direct entry types, these Cadets will be “our” Boys and Girls. Towing the company line without question. They were described as far superior in every respect, not only by the PR machine, but in front of entire groundschool classes where both entry streams were present! Initially most people struggled to account for this curious attack. Far from simple vindictiveness, it soon became apparent that it was designed to drive a wedge between the two groups. During their initial training, Cadets were constantly reminded of their vulnerability of employment. Some were even summarily dismissed from the program. Obviously as a warning to the others. one the eve of their graduation they were forced to sign a pre employment “contract” agreeing to waive certain Industrial rights. Once employed, the overwhelming majority joined the Pilot’s Union. From what I know, most of the graduated Cadets have gone on to become first rate pilots. To their credit, the Direct Entry pilots saw through the cynical, and some may say dangerous attempts to undermine employee cohesion. Rightfully so, the Direct Entry pilots have treated the former cadets as friends and colleagues. In my opinion the last line of defense with regard to safety in the flight deck relies (as it always has) on the professionalism of the people upfront. Fortunately this professionalism remains. Despite a disgraceful attempt to undermine it. if we fall into the trap of alienating one group from another based on factors outside of our control, we all lose. |
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
(Post 10430939)
There are claims around that because of the decline in general aviation, Australian airlines – of say, 29 pax and more – are putting pilots in the right hand seat with lower and lower total time.
Does anyone have any evidence of this? Are there any minimums set and are there any examples (either in Australia or overseas) where low total time pilots are in the right hand seat of quite a large aircraft? Any discussion would be really helpful. MPL has been burbling away since 2006 when ICAO published the Procedures for Air Navigation Services - Training (PANS-TRG), doc 9868t. MPL is covered in Appendix 1. It fundamentally shifts the focus from prescriptive flying hour requirements to competency-based training and assessment. It places significant emphasis on simulator training right down to what most of us would consider 'ab initio' stuff. It also takes the approach of training FOs from the outset to be part of a multi-crew environment rather than the 'traditional' approach of training for individual command competencies which then need to be 'adapted' to a multi-crew environment. As you might expect, its development and uptake has been not without controversy. EASA were one of the early adopters. CASA has also approved it (only recently I think) but I don't think that either QF or VA are looking to adopt it ... yet. The FAA is sticking to its CPL/ATPL hours based approach. For short reads, both the International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations and the European Cockpit Association have published papers on it. For a longer, more detailed read there is a very good paper on MPL by Sweden’s Lund University’s School of Aviation (Rickard Wikander and Dr. Nicklas Dahlström). Dahlström is pretty well known as Emirates’ safety, training and human factors guru. Airlines currently using MPL are mainly European and South East Asian low cost carriers such as Flybe, Air Asia, Tiger, Air Berlin, Norwegian Air Shuttle, China Eastern, Xiamen, Air China, Easyjet, Dragon Air and Fly Nikki. The more mainstream carriers also using MPL are Ethiopian, Thai Airways and Qatar. That list is not necessarily complete. One of the consistent points of concern with MPL is that 'technically' it can put someone in the right hand seat with a minimum 240 hours combined simulator/flight time with a 7:1 split in those hours between the sim and an actual aircraft. In 2016 ICAO dropped the minimum number of flown take-offs/landings required from 12 to 6 so long as competency is demonstrated. That change has been adopted by EASA. What all that means is that 'technically' an MPL first officer can take the right hand seat on something like an A320 or a B737 with as little as 30 actual flying hours (plus 210 sim hours) and 6 actual landings. I fully expect that MPL will be in the spotlight following the Ethiopian Airlines 302 crash. Near as I can tell this is the first serious accident where the FO was a low hours MPL graduate (the first officer had accumulated a total of 350 flight hours). One of the potential issues with an MPL FO (well, any FO really) is that if they can't manage their required duties in an emergency under actual emergency conditions then the whole thing quickly becomes a one-man show with the Commander/PF becoming quickly task saturated. Early reporting of ET302 has the Captain on the radio throughout - that was a bit of a worrying sign but best wait till we see the preliminary report. |
Mick. Thanks for such a detailed answer. Of course time time will tell which is the most successful approach. I can see advantages and disadvantages with each system. |
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
(Post 10433054)
Mick. Thanks for such a detailed answer. Of course time time will tell which is the most successful approach. I can see advantages and disadvantages with each system. You are dead right in that there are pros and cons for the different approaches to training and assessment. For better or for worse the traditional approach was a bit Darwinian. One of the most pressing issues with MPL, being competency-based, is that you need to invest effort in clearly, unambiguously and objectively defining what competent looks like for every task performed. Sounds easy but it proves somewhat difficult in practice. And whenever difficult in practice meets the real world you get work arounds and divergent 'standards'. You've only got to look at the discussion around whether the training and competency for handling Runaway Stabilizer on the B737 NG is a reasonably transferable competency standard for handling MCAS-induced AND trim commands. The other pressing issue for MPL is the efficacy of simulator-based training. Apart from the verisimilitude limitations particularly around 'true feel' above 1G there are the very practical limitations around programming restricting what can be trained for. The good news is that there's over a decade's worth of experience with MPL now available to review. |
CessnaPete I get it completely, I agree there is no pool of qualified professional pilots to do the job, but it’s not just a case of bad luck, rather bad management. The original question put by Dick pertained to reducing minimum hours in the right seat and the answer is an emphatic yes. |
MPL or cadetship with the airline training focus is different to guys/gals with 300 hours and a bare rating getting into the RHS. Yes it does happen, maybe not in Oz. Im still waiting for comment on who thinks the FAA way has merit or not. |
|
Originally Posted by Global Aviator
(Post 10433087)
MPL or cadetship with the airline training focus is different to guys/gals with 300 hours and a bare rating getting into the RHS. Yes it does happen, maybe not in Oz. Im still waiting for comment on who thinks the FAA way has merit or not. Funny how once you have 1500 hours you wont fly a jet for $20 an hour. If the 1500 hour rule didnt exist RJ's would be full of 250 hour wonders working for nothing. |
Originally Posted by Wizofoz
(Post 10433020)
Not necessarily- most pilots will get their ATPL once they qualify, even if it isn't required for their current job. PLUS a lot of "GA" jobs require an ATPL.
Once upon a time, but no longer, given the difficulty of suitable aircraft and horrendous cost of the ATPL flight test. Tootle pip!! |
Originally Posted by Yournamehere
What a load of absolute bollocks.
|
Air transport 7,304; Commercial 5,091; Commercial (CASA EX25/18)a 4,303; Private 9,004 What is the average age of ATPL holders, almost certainly older then CPL holders but are we facing a bulge of retirements in a short time period which would reduce the numbers even further ? How many of the CPL holders are close to obtaining the ATPL already with exams passed and a couple of hundred hours to go, compared to new licence and little experience ? If most ATPL holders were 30 years old and most CPL holders were six months away from getting a higher ticket then things aren't so bad. If there is going to be a large number of older pilots retiring over a short time period and few experienced younger pilots moving through the ranks, there could be the problem of a yawning gap in between the crusty old timers and the 200 hour wonders. |
Originally Posted by Yournamehere
(Post 10433153)
What a load of absolute bollocks.
Even though very little has been released to the public about the tragic ET accident (unless you know a great deal not very many others do), it's quite clear that the issue at hand is not the First Officer's experience level let alone the MPL. This much is patently clear given Boeing's response to the event - the manufacturer having accessed the flight data recorders too, it might be added.And if you're going to sit there and put down "well, any FO really" then I doubt you have any qualification to comment on issues that occur within a multi-crew environment. A Captain making all radio comms throughout an emergency (can you say with certainty who was PF or even what the task sharing situation was in the Ethiopian accident you refer to?) does not simply reflect poorly on the FO's ability as you allude to. It could just as easily point to a Captain's over-bearing nature which itself can have a negative an effect on a crew's attempt to resolve a given situation.You do a great disservice to yourself and to the reasonably balanced discussion that is ongoing in this thread by barging in with your baseless nonsense referencing a recent tragedy of which you have no understanding of in order to support your whimsical thoughts.I suspect from your posts that you're not (or were) an airline pilot so to sit in judgement of those who are doing a job you have never done yourself is beyond me. If you're going to start an argument about what I've said best you focus on what I've actually said rather than what you think I've said because there is manifestly a veritable gulf between the two. I didn't say that the FO's experience was the cause of the ET302 crash. I didn't even say that it was a contributing factor. In a thread specifically discussing the topic of FO experience I made the point that 'I fully expect that' an aspect of the topic being discussed in this thread will get some attention. And I do. And time, not you, will tell whether I am correct on that. As to my qualifications to comment on this, I am most assuredly not an airline pilot. Never claimed to be, and in fact in other posts in other threads, I have made it clear that I am not. That said, I have spent a fair bit of time over the past few weeks researching MPL and that entailed speaking to or corresponding with at least a dozen high hour, very experienced current commercial pilots (many of whom I know from our days in the RAAF). My observation regarding FO performance in an emergency is essentially a distillation of their views on the matter. And to be clear, I am not 'sitting in judgement' on the crew of ET302. Neither of them chose the level of training that they received or made determinations about the standards. As to whether I'm doing myself a disservice or otherwise, I'll happily place any contributions I've made to any thread up for scrutiny with regards to them being properly informed, factually correct and logically reasoned. |
Originally Posted by Yournamehere
(Post 10433326)
Mick, I wasn't starting an argument and nor do I want one. However, I took issue with, and was merely refuting, a clear inference in your post. You're being disingenuous if you now try and say you weren't insinuating that the FO's experience in the ET accident wasn't a contributing factor in the outcome. It's rather clear.
Perhaps you might remind those RAAF correspondents of yours (and the others) that they were low hour pilots/co-pilots themselves once upon a time. Having been in the service (which I deeply respect) is no ticket to a high chair of judgement of those in the airlines. Two guys that were both 12 ship leaders in the RAF I know failed their command courses in a European airline so military talent does not always translate to success in the civilian world. Excellent single seat military pilots have struggled in a multi-crew environment. Similarly, average guys thrive in a team so it takes all sorts.But with regard to putting your comments up to scrutiny - what do you know about the level of training or standards at ET that the guys "chose" to receive? Once again you are labouring points that I have not made, arguing about things that I have not said and failing to read what I have written. I have no intention of running a remedial written comprehension class here but if I was I would point out that inferences are something that the reader draws, they are not something that the writer makes; you either missed or deliberately ignored the fact that I stated that the pilots that I have discussed this matter with are 'high hour, very experienced current commercial pilots' - the ones that were in the RAAF have now spent longer in the airlines than they did in the RAAF, they are all Captains, they are well versed in CRM, some are TREs, one holds post-grad qualifications in Human Factors - in sum, they know what they are talking about when it comes to operating in a multi-crew environment, that's where they work; you quote two sentences from me above - neither are misinformed, factually incorrect or illogically reasoned. And that's me done on this matter with you. This argy-barge is adding nothing to this thread. |
One of the most pressing issues with MPL, being competency-based, is that you need to invest effort in clearly, unambiguously and objectively defining what competent looks like for every task performed. Is it, for example, merely a flash method of ticking boxes on a hate sheet? Or maybe arse covering to minimize the chances being hit with Penalty Points at the next CASA audit of the books? I talked to a former CASA Examiner recently who, because of his love of flying and to get away from the stifling confines of his open plan office, happily instructs on light aircraft. He said it took him over 1.5 hours of box ticking before he was able to send a student on his first solo in a Cessna 152. But all that aside. Clearly he would have ensured his student was competent at each sequence required before giving his student a fatherly pat on the back and sending him solo. Isn't that competency based training? Something that started with learning to fly? . In my first RAAF Log Book is a sheet of paper pinned to the first page was called called "Sequences of Instruction as per A.P 3225". Sequence No 1 is Familiarisation. . No 2 is Preparation for Flight. No 12 is First Solo. And so on until No 21 Formation Flying. A student pilots progress report certifying competency or otherwise was all the paperwork required. So what's new with the MPL being competency based training? Isn't all training aimed at getting someone competent at the desired task?. |
Sorry, what does MPL have to do with this? I dont care how the FO was trained. He was online at a pretty respectable airline so he showed the required skills to be there.
|
https://www.myskills.gov.au/media/17...d-training.pdf
https://www.icao.int/ESAF/Documents/...S-TRG%20v2.pdf Two explanations but not really sure that things improve as a result |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 19:54. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.