Only an accountant would argue that it is safe to permit someone with 100 hours to occupy the right seat of a 320/330. Any pilot manager in a position of authority that sanctions this should have his pilot credentials withdrawn.

If only we were governed by a professional association (bar, college) this crap would not go on. Hopefully, someday......

The FAA has finally put a stop to this insanity, hopefully it will spread to other jurisdictions; but don't hold your breath.

Dumb accountants come up with these cost saving ideas, but the sad part is that pilot managers attach their stamp of "approval".

Yep, you did.....

http://jobsatdragonair.com/pilots/cadet-pilots-career-progression.php

People might want to bag the MPL scheme for bringing in 0 hour pilots but I for one think it works.
We all had 0 hours at one point, whether we gained our experience in the military or GA.
The "old" cadet scheme that gave the student 200 h of real a/c time flying around a circuit does not make up for the hours of simulator time that MPL's receive.
The end product is good, and I have no issue flying with them. Even when the are still classified as SO's

Oh, dear.

So, sitting and watching flying is as good as actually flying?!

Wow.

JY9024

Are you serious? Let's advance your logic shall we? If the simulator is better than the real airplane/real stick time, then why not give a trainee even less real stick time, and more video time? Imagine the money to be saved!?

Yes we all had 100 or 200 hours at one time....but not in the right seat of a commercial airliner. Can you not grasp this? Did you miss the Air Asia crash last year? The F/O was unable to maintain level flight when the autopilot disengaged in level flight.

That's why the FAA has banned this rediculous concept! It's insanely dangerous and has set up the industry (outside the FAA jurisdiction) for more catastrophe. It's not a question of "if" this will happen, but "when".

So people will say and do anything to justify their position.

This MPL fiasco is a ...........fiasco.

Four genuine questions:

1. How many sectors/hours do MPL cadets at KA fly with a safety pilot before them being allowed to fly with just the trainer?

2. How long is their course to line check?

3. What is the pass rate for MPL cadets?

4. How many hours does the FH PPRuNe community think is an absolute minimum number of actual hours in an actual control seat of an actual aircraft before they'd be comfortable flying with a cadet of any variety?

STP

Bit of miss inform there PW. That's the now defunct expat B package. New C scale very similar to CX C scale. New pilots and almost all command upgrades now C scale.

Flex 88

Your creative use of the term 'Fact' and incessant banging on about about direct entry zero hour pilots is very tiresome. KA employ SO's. It's a convenient excuse to pay pilots in an operating seat a lower salary but in light of their lesser experience, they operate to greatly reduced minima (wind/cloud/vis). Just because CX has a long haul network that can support years of cruise-only operations is both convenient.... and another excuse to pay pilots a lower salary, this time to get around FTL's. Many airlines around the world put cadet pilots straight into the RHS, I believe BA is one. Conversely to CX, BA rosters two Captains for long haul as they're not prepared to leave the flight deck sans Skipper. Something your own airline is more than happy to do.

raven11

You've missed his point. He's saying elements such as precautionary search and landings and 500ft low level nav in a Grob/DA42, 2 elements of a 'full' licence, have no relevance to airline flying and replacing that time with hours in the sim of the type they're going to fly on the line are more beneficial.

raven11 & ACMS

You've never flown with an MPL, never assessed the product and are dismissing the guy that has?

Personal opinion on MPL's

They're fine. They certainly don't need to be "untrained" of the bad habits picked up from GA and/or previous operators. The MPL's that went through the first course that included time in a King Air are noticeably better but both streams are ultimately acceptable. I'm pissed that the company accountants cut this element as it short changes the candidate and pushes those lessons to the line. Ultimately, it's their line Captains that have to pick up the slack.

Where the MPL stream suffers is manipulative skills and confidence. They have not been exposed to enough landings in sufficiently varied conditions to develop the skill and judgement required to land the in all the conditions their 'restricted minima' allow (yes, I'm talking about 10kts XW here people). This leads to a lack of confidence and over reliance on automation. Following the flight director to touchdown is common. Making weather deviation decisions on a gin clear day with 1-2 isolated cells by sole reference to the WXRDR is common. Pushing the wrong rudder in a crosswind is common. Thinking ability is demonstrated by the speed with which you program the box is common.

They are dedicated, motivated, know what they need to know and turn up at dispatch without attitude/arrogance. They start out lacking in manipulative skill and experience. For the latter, no more than the regular cadet stream and the former only marginally so.

TT

Terrain Terrain

My comments are not meant to be personal; as I said in my post, the cost cutting practice of placing no-time/low-time "pilots" in the right seat of a commercial airliner is patently dangerous.

Your personal evidence suggesting that "they're fine" is anecdotal. On the other hand the FAA compiled massive evidence, and the associated accident statistics, to justify new regulations banning this cost saving practice in US jurisdictions.

I suggest you challenge their findings with your own personal observations.

Four genuine questions: With answers...

1. How many sectors/hours do MPL cadets at KA fly with a safety pilot before them being allowed to fly with just the trainer?

Min 20

2. How long is their course to line check?

About 80 sectors.

3. What is the pass rate for MPL cadets?

Very Good, they just give them more sectors till there at an acceptable standard but they do lose the odd one.

4. How many hours does the FH PPRuNe community think is an absolute minimum number of actual hours in an actual control seat of an actual aircraft before they'd be comfortable flying with a cadet of any variety?

Up to the individual captain..

The point is that we have to take on cadets in HK due to some law. its actually no cheaper these days than hiring a DEFO with experience.

The company did screw up its math a few years back by only bringing in cadets as we now have very little experience to upgrade. (which is why KA are recruiting DEFO's right now)

OK4Wire

Flying a circuit in a C152 for 100 hours is les useful than spending an equivalent amount of time in a multi crew environment (Simulator) dealing with real time scenarios.
MPl come into the system notably better team players and in most parts are easier to train. Handling issues are always a problem with a cadet/MPL and some are noticeably better than others.

I never said I agree with the concept but its not up to me. The end result, whether MPL or cadet after a couple of years on the line is the same.. Good guys/girls, eager to learn and in all cases very professional. I think being thrown into the operating seat from the start does this.

Raven11

Ive witnessed some very average hand flying from experienced pilots at late and can also say that more locals take out the automatics than the experienced FO's when flying the line.

JY

Here's some reading about the 1500 hour requirement imposed by the FAA.

The 1500-Hour Rule - Is America at a Disadvantage? Cass Report

Forbes Welcome

I found this extract from the Forbes article interesting:

I've not flown with an MPL pilot so I can't speak from personal experience. What I can say, and I've said this before, is that I've flown with some very inexperienced pilots (in terms of hours) who have been nothing short of exceptional. I've also flown with some experienced pilots who were average (that's a euphemism by the way). The opposite is also true.

@JY9024 thanks for the reply.

STP

Personally, I'll take high hours over low hours when screening new pilots. However, I also think that hiring high quality candidates with little experience can be managed effectively as long as the main hiring pool consists of experienced pilots.

The real enemy here is a management culture that does not respect the pilot profession and wants to spend peanuts on training and compensation. This culture resulted in a number of (predictable) accidents that forced the FAA to implement regulations to protect the traveling public from unscrupulous management practices that sought the cheapest pilot possible.

The second link below is a balanced editorial from Air Transport world that seems to get to the core of the problem.What may be getting lost in this debate is that regardless of the hours a candidate has prior to being permitted to operate a large commercial airliner, compensation is a key driver in attracting the best qualified candidate (with or without prior experience).

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_relea...m?newsId=14838
Editorial - When Hours Rule | Labor content from ATWOnline

You guys are mixing up two separate issues:

C scale and entry requirements

If entry requirements are really your main concern, then why you guys do not come forward with a demand to raise the bar ?

The argument to offer more compensation in order to get more qualified pilots is not persuasive. Why take the detour via pay, why not directly ask for more experience?

I don't remember much opposition at the time expat SO's still got B.

The company sees thru this, you will not impress anybody with that strategy. They will just sit back and take their chances.

Also I find it schizophrenic with all due respect: on the one hand you clearly have nothing but contempt for our new-joiners, on the other hand you fall into your sword to get them more housing.


I get it of course, you guys think : raise all to B then I will never get C.

The problem is : C is reality and it will not go away. Period. Like it or not.

@raven11

Probably my final input to this discussion about low hour pilots. This is an extract from a 2013 ATSB study commissioned by the Senate following the introduction of the 1500 hour rule by the FAA to help decide whether a similar rule was required in Australia:

STP

Oh yes and exactly which interested stake holder said that?

STP
Please stop! It's no wonder our management can constantly get the better of us.

Why is it that only members of the pilot profession will willingly cheerlead low time/no time replacements?

For goodness sake STP, our management agrees with you. What does that tell you?

You never see any member of any other profession engage in such self destructive behavior! Can anyone imagine a doctor, lawyer, accountant, etc campaign for less trained and less experienced replacements? To even go so far as to suggest less/no experience is just as good...or even better. It's enough to make me weep.

I guess the next thing I'll be told is to check my privilege...

Raven11 is probably one of the most qualified persons out there to opinion on this matter.

And he's absolute correct.

OK, not my final input.

@ACMS

I guess the interested stakeholders must have been the authors of the report, Melanie A. Todd, of the ATSB & University of South Australia and Dr Matthew J.W. Thomas, of the Central Queensland University & University of South Australia. The report is available for download on the ATSB website. Are you insinuating that the authors weren't being impartial?

@raven11

I'm not an advocate for MPL type schemes but what I am saying is that using hours as a metric for experience and, by association competence, is outdated. Our industry has moved on from the days when 1500 hours in a DC4 equated to experience. I'm sure you'll agree that 1500 hours in a 777 going across the Pacific is not the same thing.

There is no doubt that to produce competent pilots, not only do training schemes need to be thorough and demanding but, probably more importantly, the checking system has to be honest. If the checkers at an airline see that candidates, of whatever background, meet the required standard I fail to see your point - either pilots are good enough or they're not.

The following is an extract from a 2006 article by Richard M. Satava, MD FACS, Professor of Surgery at the University of Washington Medical Center on the use of simulators in surgical training:

As can be seen, aviation is not the only profession where increased use of simulators is being employed for the acquisition of practical skills.

Finally, as far as seeing other professions engage in this supposed self-destructive behaviour I can't say because I never read any medical/legal/accounting equivalents of PPRuNe. In fact, I can't imagine any of those professions engaging in such a forum as their employment world is so different from ours but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

STP

There's no substitute whatsoever for experience and the airmanship it develops.

Any monkey can be trained to say, "flight plan fuel?" and "everybody happy?" and push the right buttons at the right time. It's when the s^$t hits the fan that the shortcomings of trading training for experience and airmanship will become evident.

As long as the procedures are followed and Mother Nature cooperates, everything will be fine.

Trans Asia ATR, Air Asia A320, Air France A330 ....... The list goes on, and on. MPL trained pilots that turned recoverable situations into deadly accidents and incidents, through an inability to actually fly the aircraft.

The Air France accident may give us a glimpse into the future of airliners crewed only by MPL trained crew. Both pilots on the flight deck that night had never worked nor flown anywhere other than Air France and their cadet program.

Compare these accidents to the handling of the Cathay A330 returning from Indonesia.

Nuff said.

Nobody cares. Do people now avoid Air Asia? Or Air France?

It's business.

Cathay Profit Margin Under Pressure as Fuel Hedging Losses Mount - Bloomberg

JPJP - x2

The Sim will always be a simulation. Zero jeopardy, zero consequence.

Nothing replaces the real thing.

Problem is, the bean counters and actuaries in each airline look at the probabilities and calculate that the cheapness of MPL's and low-timers outweighs the cost of a possible loss of one or even two hulls. After two, they may do something about it.

It's the ugly face of capitalism.

“Cathay’s task is to remove costs to sustain affordable mass market luxury product,” said Will Horton, an analyst at CAPA Centre for Aviation, in Hong Kong. “Cathay is running a major hub in a high-cost location. Unlike other high-cost hubs, such as Tokyo, the local market is not as loyal and not as willing to pay a premium for a local operator.”

Bloomberg today.

Tell me, TooLongtimeinCX, which part don't you understand?

You guys are playing with fire and don't even realise it.

STW. Most of us don't CARE anymore. And I personally won't let my value be defined by fear and intimidation. Sad that you come across as a frightened ferret with it's tail between its legs. Grow a pair.

Trafalgar,

I don't believe you.

You care enough to post ( a lot) , you care enough to vote agains a TA, you care enough to follow CC and a training ban.

You care enough to call me cowardly because I think this war is not only wrong, but reckless.

You care enough to risk your B scale contract plus future benefits so that C scale new joiners can live in Mid Levels.

You do care. A lot.

STW. The simple fact you think our resistance to continual attacks and degradation of our contracts is 'wrong' confirms to me your are misguided and cowardly. Fear will result in only one outcome. The exact outcome that the tactics of our management seek. Your attitude only helps promote and advance those goals. You are of course entitled to your opinion.

STW: Because the remuneration package weeded out the low-time or inexperienced applicants. The min requirements used to be 1000 hrs TT. But to be competitive for the job an applicant really needed 3000-5000 hrs along with approx. 1000 hrs multi engine Command time and/or jet time. As you mentioned earlier: supply and demand. Supply an attractive reward & the demand will be such that it will attract applicants accordingly. Now, with the C Scale package, applicants with the experience that once used to be the norm are now by far (very far) the absolute exception. Pay bananas, you'll get monkeys.

I also know of applicants who got in as B Scale SO's with just over 1000 hrs TT. They had tertiary degrees in Science and could fly the pants off most people with 5 times those hours. So hours does not always equate to competence (however I do believe there is a coalition).

So we discuss TRAINING standards to replace lack of experience. Some mental pigmies here have categorically stated how real aircraft flying is a waste of time in lieu of the illustrious simulator. You know, the same one you can crash by screwing up your V1 cut when at MTOW but walk away from and laugh about later... No. Not the same and never will. In the real aircraft we learned from out mistakes because the jeopardy was real and as such the lessons learned, experience grown and professionalism gained.

So correct me please on the realities of CX's SO sim training. An SO from the B Scale era was required to fulfil 12 or 14 full-flight sim sessions prior to commencement of line training. But a C Scale SO with far, far, FAR, F A R less experience now only receives 4 FFS sessions? So do you think CX is really still putting safety and training first - seriously? What's scariest of all is that these spiky haired brats honestly believe they have "The Right Stuff' as true guardians of the AP....until a TCAS RA occurs and the other pilot is out taking leak.... (Happy to be corrected on the FFS SO training syllabus).

That's what a union does. They stand together for the betterment of ALL, and not just themselves. Too many of the fast becoming majority don't see that. They see me-first only and it being all too tough to live on a disgraceful remuneration package that they asked for, and what's more see themselves as "doing all the heavy lifting" in this TB and CC state of affairs.

(However at CX I'll acknowledge that it's only when the AOA and the membership see their own money or lifestyle threatened do they act. By allowing C Scale to even happen without so much as whisper of action is evidence enough... And so now they're fighting to play catch up against what should have never been allowed to occur from the beginning).

Yes, C Scale is here to stay. However is what form it takes toward the future is the debate and worth fighting for. Do nothing and let's set the stop watch for D Scale. And then you'll all wonder "How did this happen [AGAIN.....]"?

CB I think you will find that new SOs are doing about 9 full flight sim sessions before line training. Half way through line training they will also complete another sim. Following that for the next 6 months in the company they will be doing roughly 1 sim every month. Why try and just spread false information?

Interesting. So it's true that applicants with extremely less experience than the past SO new joiners receive less sim training prior to getting in to the real aircraft.

I'd still like to confirm the exact number of (min) FFS for a new B Scale SO as opposed to what the (C Scale) syllabus is now.

Thanks.....

ChinaBeached: You last comment, "C scale is here to stay" is exactly indicative of all that has gone wrong in CX since the mid-90's. The company has strategically undermined and destroyed the value of our contracts and we have collectively done nothing to stop them. Now, when we have finally implemented a strategy that has not only stopped CX from operating the airline as they wish, and put them on notice that there is a high expectation and insistence on obtaining a proper contract with proper work rules, out of our own woodwork the weak and easily cowed come to the fore. It might be worth reminding everyone that the US industry also went through the B scale phase back in the 90's as well. The big difference is that due to their employees resisting and fighting back, all the US majors ditched the B scale and now only have one proper scale. All with proper salaries, pensions, medical and travel benefits. We have gone from arguably the best airline in the world to work for to one of the unhappiest, most ill-managed airlines in the space of 20 years. Does anyone actually think that acquiescing to the plans of this management is going to result in a career worth investing your working life in? Of will it result in the modern day equivalent of the plantation worker, where you're beaten regularly and thrown a few pennies a day to work until you finally drop dead of exhaustion? I personally have no doubt which of those options represents the path CX is taking us on. Laying down and letting the AT's of the world get her way is a guarantee that you will either die on the job miserable, or have to find another career elsewhere before that happens. The ONLY strategy is to maintain resistance and unity and force CX to accept that the only way to run this airline is with the cooperation and mutual respect with it's highly trained aircrew. There can be no other option, for either party, no matter how long that takes.

Chinabeached,

I am simply not as worried as you regarding experience/skills of our new joiners. I never made a bad experience myself, I think they will do just fine.

But I can see you are genuinely concerned and I respect that.

I agree. As a collective pilot body whereby the AOA is the largest group there's a theme of reacting rather than being proactive. Chasing after a horse after it's bolted has it's merits if you can catch it. And I believe it's worth every effort to do so even though the damn gate should never have been left open in the first place.

Key word is "finally". But why did it come to this? As I wrote, it should never have. The AOA and pilot body sat back and watched C Scale roll in without as much as a whimper. A few pathetic lines in the AOA Newsletters but no training ban against C Scale. No sick-out. No CC. Not even an AOA referendum. It didn't affect their lifestyle or back pocket at the time so no one cared. Warham even wrote that in order to protect your future you MUST protect your present. Few, if anyone and least of all the AOA gave a damn. I wrote ad nausea that C Scale will lead to a serious & undeniable threat to B Scale conditions.... I wish I was wrong but I really don't think I was.

Just look at the calibre of brains trust that boasts of being the "new generation" at CX... And that we're all living in the past; who defend C Scale as a good thing; who vote for short term bandaids instead of long term security.... Again, look at the present to view the future.

C Scale is here to stay as much as B Scale will be grandfathered out. Or as I sadly call this whole methodology: "prima nocta".

This is what we've become, monkeys who don't touch the thrust levers because we expect the airplane to do it for us automatically. Time to get out of this career before some monkey kills me.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...de-risk-428468

EasyJet incident highlights 'open descent' mode risk

12 AUGUST, 2016
UK investigators have reiterated the need to understand aircraft behaviour in various modes after the stall-protection system intervened on an EasyJet Airbus A320 during a visual approach to Paphos.

It had been conducting a left-hand circuit to runway 29, following a service from London Luton on 7 January last year.

The aircraft had been cleared to descend from 4,000ft to 1,500ft and the crew was using ‘open descent’ mode on the A320, with the engines at idle thrust and the autopilot maintaining a target speed using pitch.

When the first officer, who was flying, started the base turn he disconnected the autopilot. But the captain was pre-occupied by a radio call and a subsequent instruction to turn off the flight director was “overlooked”, says the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch.

With the flight director left on, the aircraft crucially remained at idle thrust. To maintain airspeed the pilot needed to follow the flight director’s pitch commands.

“Thrust will not increase when the pitch commands are not followed and there is a decay in speed, until the low-speed protections activate,” says the inquiry.

“Flight crew are accustomed to the speed protections afforded by the [autothrust] and…if misunderstood, there can be an expectation that the [autothrust] will vary the thrust to maintain the target speed.”

The A320 had turned onto the base leg while descending through 3,100ft at 165kt.

But as the aircraft turned, the first officer stated that the airspeed was decaying. It descended through 2,680ft with airspeed just 5kt above the lowest selectable – a threshold which provides a margin to the stall speed – at 12° nose-up pitch and a high angle-of-attack.

The airspeed continued to decay, to 2kt below lowest selectable, and the first officer focused on the speed situation.

“In the turn, the pitch attitude increased and the rate of descent decreased, leading to a further reduction in airspeed,” says the inquiry, adding that this triggered the automatic stall-protection system.

The inquiry notes that the first officer had made aft sidestick inputs despite the reduction in airspeed, indicating that he was losing situational awareness.

With the aircraft pitched 10.5° nose-up and climbing through 2,900ft, the first officer handed control to the captain. The captain was startled by the decision, and had to assess an unexpected situation, but the crew subsequently initiated a missed approach and regained control of the aircraft.

Although the pilots had received specific training on automation modes, and the first officer had been made aware of risks associated with ‘open descent’, the inquiry says the crew demonstrated a “breakdown in procedures” and a “lack of appropriate reaction” to the airspeed reduction.

EasyJet had previously provided a programme of automated flight-mode awareness simulator training but, following the Paphos incident, additional procedures involving mode announcement have been introduced.

So, the FO flying, mentions that 'speed is decaying', and simply pitches the nose of the aircraft up, without adding thrust (a basic concept that earlier generation pilots would do instinctively). Then, he continues to watch the speed decay and still doesn't add any thrust....ok. Then, he abruptly hands control back to the Captain. Ok, seems like a normal day in the new 'spiky hair brigade' era. I know, let's have 8 years of only hiring cadets with no experience. What could possibly go wrong. :ooh:

Exactly.... Experience creates instinct.

STW: it's not what happens 99% that gets you in trouble, it's the 1% that should never have happened in the first place. The fact that it seems evident that the bare basics are missing when already on a jet transport should make you and all of us worried. (As per that 1% situation with the TCAS RA and failure to react. Is that 1% a one-off or indicative of the true standards that have yet to be exposed?)

(But I think this thread is drifting....)

Trigger warning: Sarcasm.....

Oval....but....but....but.....with those under slung engines if he/she had added thrust they would have lost control!!! It's an unusual attitude....or is it a stall...I don't know....but would it not have been better to reduce thrust and push the nose over?

Continuing the thread drift and along similar lines to Oval's post.

Asiana 214. Total experience of the pilots in the control seats: 22126 hours.

Oval, if you're going to leave this career for the stated reasons, presumably you're going to stop flying as a passenger too? To do otherwise would be illogical.

STP

STP. Asiana.....really?, that is where you want to go with this? As you well know, there is a cultural authority control gradient to blame there. A further review of asian accidents (korean ones in particular!) would suggest that there is a deep flaw at the heart of their cultural approach to operating aircraft. I'm sorry if that isn't politically correct, but then that term is meaningless when lives are at stake. Sadly, CX is slowly reducing it's operational integrity in the same direction. Lack of experience and a multi-cultural approach to managing the operation will lead to only one headline. Only a matter of time.