Hand flying. Low hour co-pilots. Automation dependency.

[MrSnuggles]

Please, mods, I searched for a thread like this but was unable to find it. This discussion is spread also all across this board so I didn't know where to post. Please feel free to merge or move with the most suitable thread if need be.

Ok.

I just saw this ad from a well known airline. A comment in the comment section caught my attention and lo and behold. The happy lady smiles and says

"We take cadets with zero or very few hours and make them into professional pilots."

Apparently you become a pro in 13 months - that's the amount of training she advertises.

Now, noone would even dare saying that a first year medical student will be recruited from the streets and transformed into an expert surgeon in just 13 months. Any claims to that effect would be considered ridiculous.

So how the hell is this possible regarding pilots?

The ad in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX5_fzgwdaA

[de facto]

The same way as guys are taken from scratch and fly F18s at the age of 20.
It all depends on the quality of training.
I doubt the new cadets do much flying there until they served enough tea for the guys seating upfront of the jumpseat

[M.Mouse]

I think your thread title is misleading, the advert has nothing to do with hand flying or automation dependency.

The statement she made was that after 13 months you come out of training as a commercial pilot. Factually correct, nowhere did she mention the word 'pro'.

Cathay's training standards are amongst the highest in the world. The advert was well put together and it is good to see a world class airline sponsoring cadets.

I am sure your biased, inaccurate and actually quite pointless thread will be removed.

[Tourist]

Also, to be fair, being a doctor is a lot more difficult. The evidence suggests that just about anybody with 100K in their pocket can successfully become an airline pilot.

[Yonosoy Marinero]

The evidence suggests that just about anybody with 100K in their pocket can successfully become an airline pilot.

But not necessarily a good one.

Not that airlines care, as long as they can keep hiring on ever decreasing terms.

[MrSnuggles]

My thread was not at all meant specific to this airline. The ad was just as a demonstration for how weird I thought it to be.

Automation dependency has been a worry for a few years now, even Airbus has tried to push for more hand flying.

Isn't a 13 month training from zero hours kind of automation dependency training? Do you really get the hands on flying that will be necessary in case your screen turns black? Isn't there a reason for FAA in the US to recommend 1500 hrs flying time before promotions?

[CodyBlade]

https://www.tigerair.com/news/TR_201...ith_CAEOAA.pdf

85hrs SEL
ATPL [F]
A320 TR
No CPL

[de facto]

pilots miss a lot without experience in flying smaller types commercially...not only it allows pilots to grow a sense of airmanship but also various skills that will come handy down the road.
I am still baffled when an fo can not recognise a BE 1900 from a cessna caravan...
Concerning lengh to become fighter ready..i guess 4 years to fly an F18 compared to 13 months to have a cpl...there aint much difference..and yes one is obviously way more demanding...after all,the tax money is used in one and the other private money is.

[Shep69]

Many military forces take close to zero time pilots and through intense training have them flying supersonic jets on the wing through aerobatics in less than a year. Add another year and they can be flying a front line fighter; add another year or two and they will actually be capable in effectively employing the front line fighter.

So it can be done.

But there is little to parallel this in the civil sector, and even less when it comes to advanced aircraft handling.

AND at the end of that year the newly minted pilots, while good in stick and rudder skills, neither have the experience to know what is good and bad nor do they entirely know WHY the aircraft is behaving as it does through the various flight regimes (or have explored them in very great detail). Or are able to 'consolidate' this knowledge into a larger picture for several years.

AND through this 'consolidation' period there continues to be much activity in actual handling and flying rather than managing automatics or watching air go by (or debating esoterics of rules or minutia).

Even with this, there's a significant spike in accident rates around the 3-5 year point as they become familiar enough to become confident, yet don't entirely have their judgment wrapped around what is going on around them, how things can snowball quickly from good to bad, and how it's better to preempt the bad situations from occurring in the first place.

It don't come cheap--several million dollars invested in a person to have them competent in a major weapons system. In the early to mid 90s, a capable flight lead in a MWS was a "six million dollar man."

Cheap and aviation are two words which cannot live together. You simply must invest in the operators in initial and recurrent training if you expect them to be good and stay that way--and even get better with experience. And there's also simply no substitute for experience.

[de facto]

Excellent post!

[mngmt mole]

One BIG difference: in the military, the chop rate from selection to front line fighter jock is close to 80% (at least when I went thru the RAAF). In civvie world (ie, CX cadet training), it might be 20%. The fighter jock is a much higher caliber individual than the one we have at CX. I show up now and wonder who the heck these 'children' are that are wearing a uniform. Embarrassing...

[cpdude]

- First of all, achieving your military wings takes longer than a year.
- Next, it's a very steep learning curve or you're gone! So only the best of those that actually desire to fly in the Military make it to fast jet.
- I have never seen anyone who woke up one day and decided to be a pilot, out of the blue like we see in CX, actually succeed at becoming a fast jet pilot.

I'm not saying that after 10 or 20 years of experience that a military pilot is any better than a civy pilot but it's fair to say that a military pilot is a guaranteed fast learner.

[bm330]

The screening to even begin Airforce Wings would eliminate most CX cadets.From the skills being demonstrated by most JFOs, maybe 1 in 10 would ever make it to Wings. It has alot to do with the near vertical learning curve and miss two in a row and you're done. That being said, many Cadets will eventually become accomplished pilots. The risk is getting from here to there without killing anyone.

[Sand Man]

Even though military flying schools tend to feel like sausage machines at times they will not pass someone that is not up to standard. Civvy flying schools however always have the commercial pressure to pass students so they can get paid. Big difference.

Another thing, military pilots learn most from the daily interaction with other pilots at the SQN and in the crew room where open discussion about events and most importantly f^&% ups is encouraged without the risk of persecution. It is difficult to see the same culture in a commercial company.

[Lowkoon]

Interesting that spike at the 3-5 year mark that Shep mentioned. Gaining enough time in the seat to be complacent, but with not enough experience to fall back on. Anyone care to guess the time (roughly) to command at KA? I wonder if the fact they are looking at reducing the time to command is to make sure the candidates are not yet in the complacent period, or do you think it might just have a little to do with the bottom line, and having to hire those pesky experienced guys?

[Gnadenburg]

It's just not helpful comparing military training to civilian cadet programs- which tend to be commercial instruments to avoid wage blow-outs and get someone from A to a supervised position a few feet above the ground at B.

What is a concern in my observations is a generational loss of skills in just a few years. The rapid decline has many reasons but I think it's been accelerated by line captains refusing to take the responsibility of giving the cadets the training the system hasn't delivered. I tend to agree with the arguments that if managers aren't making a stand against commercial pressures why should a line captain expose his own operation? Though personally I get a buzz out of giving a cadet ( unbelievably ) their first raw data or visual approach in a jet - though I did discover none had been given a brief in their training on either elemental skill.

Now the generational loss of skills is an observation over the last few years and is about to be rapidly exacerbated with an increase in training pilots who are concerned about exposing their own operations as well. How can a modern day cadet be processed onto the line under the guise of evidence based training with zero exposure to raw data or visual flying?

Perhaps the solution would be instead of in a line check being asked how many bottles of water are allowed on the flight deck or the number of high viz jacket in the coat locker, there's an expectation to demonstrate some sort of hand flown flying skill such as a raw data approach. Sadly, such a cultural turn around would expose HKG operators to a potential hull loss.

[White None]

De Facto..

am still baffled when an fo can recognise a be 1900 from a cessna caravan...

I suspect you meant when he "Can't" recognise the difference between what I assume ar two smallish GA aircraft?? Either way I fail to see ANY relevance whatsoever. I'm fairly hot on very small black silhouettes of Warsaw Pact fighters, ships and tanks (irrelevant) but civvywise can just about get the CX types most of the time, (irrelevant). I'd still let my wife and kids fly anywhere with me though - yours too. Back to hand flying - not that we seem to have mentioned it much.

[Shutterbug]

@mngmt mole

The fighter jock is a much higher caliber individual than the one we have at CX. I show up now and wonder who the heck these 'children' are that are wearing a uniform. Embarrassing...

Here we go again. Blaming the trainees for the system. Pathetic.

One BIG difference: in the military, the chop rate from selection to front line fighter jock is close to 80% (at least when I went thru the RAAF). In civvie world (ie, CX cadet training), it might be 20%.

At the moment the US Army rejects over 80% of all applicants, including applicants who apply to become Field Sanitation Specialist, or janitors, in the civilian vernacular. Imagine that. An 80% rejection rate to become a US Army sh1t-shoveler. Why, the US Army Field Sanitation program is practically Ivy League.... LMAO.......

The US Army Aviation Center has a relatively low failure rate. That's because most of the candidates are screened before they ever enter the program. If the US Army Aviation Center washed out 80% of its candidates, forget about the fact nearly the entire fleet of the US Army's 4000 aircraft would basically be permanently grounded, the cost of training personnel would be so cost prohibitive to be unsustainable. Most candidates are dropped before they ever enter the program. That's where the 80% comes from. I'm assuming that's where your number regarding the RAAF reference comes from. Unless of course the Australian taxpayer gladly forks over hundreds of millions to "chop" pilots from their program.

Your sloppy assumption, that somehow CX doesn't prescreen hundreds if not thousands of aspiring pilot applicants before they ever enter the CX program is simply wrong. You've simply made a sloppy assumption because you're not involved in the CX recruitment process and there's seems to be a raging fad for blaming children for a world they didn't create.

[CPA777]

Just note, CX have been hiring zero hour cadets since the late 1980s. Many of them now are TC/STCs.

Its been business as usual, if you ex-military guys think you're better than the majority, maybe you should of stayed in the military.

[Just Do It]

As a "Cadet" you will always have that label. It defines you. Just like "Made in China".