BALPA opposes a new Airline Cadet licensing method?
Thread Starter
BALPA opposes a new Airline Cadet licensing method?
In Balpas annual report they say they strongly oppose a new method of licensing airline cadets. They do this because in their view the proposed requirements for training and testing are inadequate.
Does anyone know anything about the proposed JAA changes that Balpa are oposing?
Sounds like the JAA wants to water down the standards...
Anyone?
WWW
Does anyone know anything about the proposed JAA changes that Balpa are oposing?
Sounds like the JAA wants to water down the standards...
Anyone?
WWW
Multiple posting same post on different forums? Shame on you! 
A stupid idea for a professional co-pilot licence. Basic flying training only to PPL standard, everything else in simulators of one sort or another until a base check on a commercial jet....
Truly the lunatics are trying to run the asylum.
Truly the lunatics are trying to run the asylum.
To slightly enlarge on Beagles post,
The idea was for approximately 40 hours of training in light aircraft after which the rest (up to approximately 160 hours) would be in a full flight simulator - probably of the type operated by the sponsoring airline. At the completion of this 120 hours of IR/LOFT etc there would be an LST folowed by base and line training.
This would result in a 200 hour airline pilot who instead of having 160 hrs in light singles and twins and 40 hrs or so sim/aircraft on the multicrew type would have 40 hrs on light aircraft and 160hrs sim/ac on the multicrew type.
Although expensive, remembering that as two trainees would be paired in the sim with a TRI the cost would only be about 80 sim hours per candidate (remember that they do about 30 -40 anyway on an initial type rating) and might compare not unfavourably with the 50 grand for an integrated course at the likes of Oxford and Cabair.
The licence would not just be for a "copilot" as they could progress as normal to 1500 hrs/ATPL and eventually command. However the licensewould only be valid for multi crew aircraft with no cross over to singe crew commercial flying.
The idea came, I believe, from the airlines who were questioning the relevance of a lot of the light aircraft flying in the 509 course or it's modern equivalent. Whether it is a good idea or not is a matter of opinion, but you can see the airlines point of view, to some extent.
Most of this is heresay from chatting to TRIs and TREs in bars - so I take no responsibility if it is not entirely accurate but you should get the idea.
The idea was for approximately 40 hours of training in light aircraft after which the rest (up to approximately 160 hours) would be in a full flight simulator - probably of the type operated by the sponsoring airline. At the completion of this 120 hours of IR/LOFT etc there would be an LST folowed by base and line training.
This would result in a 200 hour airline pilot who instead of having 160 hrs in light singles and twins and 40 hrs or so sim/aircraft on the multicrew type would have 40 hrs on light aircraft and 160hrs sim/ac on the multicrew type.
Although expensive, remembering that as two trainees would be paired in the sim with a TRI the cost would only be about 80 sim hours per candidate (remember that they do about 30 -40 anyway on an initial type rating) and might compare not unfavourably with the 50 grand for an integrated course at the likes of Oxford and Cabair.
The licence would not just be for a "copilot" as they could progress as normal to 1500 hrs/ATPL and eventually command. However the licensewould only be valid for multi crew aircraft with no cross over to singe crew commercial flying.
The idea came, I believe, from the airlines who were questioning the relevance of a lot of the light aircraft flying in the 509 course or it's modern equivalent. Whether it is a good idea or not is a matter of opinion, but you can see the airlines point of view, to some extent.
Most of this is heresay from chatting to TRIs and TREs in bars - so I take no responsibility if it is not entirely accurate but you should get the idea.
Thread Starter
Hmmm. more later.
WWW
WWW
Sad but inevitable. After all I am told the diference between good and bad SCUD pilots is typing speed. But seriously, the MBA, bean counter airline executives, who are long on business theory, but short on wisdom; don't want pilots, they want cockpit drones. 
But seriously, the MBA, bean counter airline executives, who are long on business theory, but short on wisdom; don't want pilots, they want cockpit drones.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the guest speakers at an Instructor Refresher Seminar I recently attended at Cranfield gave a talk on FNPTs and their certification through the CAA with which he was connected.
Now I have had a look through my mountains of paper work and cannot find his name, but his parting shot was that KLM/Lufthansa have put forward an ab initio zero flight time cadet course on which the first time the F/O lands any a/c for real will be with fare payings in the back.
I am sure Tony Kember at FTA could help.
Now I have had a look through my mountains of paper work and cannot find his name, but his parting shot was that KLM/Lufthansa have put forward an ab initio zero flight time cadet course on which the first time the F/O lands any a/c for real will be with fare payings in the back.
I am sure Tony Kember at FTA could help.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
