Cadets over Experience ? please explain
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
G-Force and Cliff are both right - 250 hour cadets are safe enough in the context of a very very specific highly regulated first world airline environment, and they are an absolute liability in the wild west of a lot of far east / middle east / third world environments. I was very lucky to receive my Airbus training at a UK airline which really knew their stuff - and also I had the cushion of being a turboprop captain with 4000ish hours at that stage. I subsequently went to Qatar and then on to the far east airline I'm with now, and the training / operating / CRM standards were just 
by comparison, without getting into issues of culture let's just say that a lot of the captains are very old-school in their CRM and it's a sink or swim environment, you have to learn everything yourself because they aren't interested or capable of teaching you. A lot of the cadets in these kind of places really struggle for the first couple of years and it's not their fault.
HOWEVER - if that hypothetical big one comes in the UK with that cadet at the controls, it won't actually matter who's in the right or wrong. The typical reader of the Daily Mail isn't interested in the fine details of the hours vs experience learning curve. They are interested in outrage, shock, horror, pointing the finger of blame, finding a scapegoat and demanding instant band-aid answers from politicians. And that's what they'll get
by comparison, without getting into issues of culture let's just say that a lot of the captains are very old-school in their CRM and it's a sink or swim environment, you have to learn everything yourself because they aren't interested or capable of teaching you. A lot of the cadets in these kind of places really struggle for the first couple of years and it's not their fault. HOWEVER - if that hypothetical big one comes in the UK with that cadet at the controls, it won't actually matter who's in the right or wrong. The typical reader of the Daily Mail isn't interested in the fine details of the hours vs experience learning curve. They are interested in outrage, shock, horror, pointing the finger of blame, finding a scapegoat and demanding instant band-aid answers from politicians. And that's what they'll get
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is amazing how many of these pseudo arguments cite AF447 or Colgan 3407 as being somehow evidentiary to the case against cadet pilots. Neither of these accidents had a cadet pilot in sight. Colgan had two crew with almost 5500 hours between them. By the criteria promoted by some contributors to this (and other) threads the very definition of "experienced" pilots. Indeed the changes introduced by the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010, wouldn't have precluded either of these pilots from being crew in their respective roles on that fateful day back in February 2009. However poor training, a history of failed check-rides, transcontinental commuting, and consequential fatigue, poor situational awareness and a lack of adequate response, were all cited as relevant and contributory factors. Similarly with AF447 there was not a cadet in sight, but plenty of "experience" on that flight deck. 20,500 hours of it! The most junior F/O had nearly 3000 hours (almost the same hours as the Colgan captain.) Similarly poor situational awareness and response were cited as likely factors in that accident.
The AS&FAAEA (2010) wasn't simply a minimum experience threshold, it also encapsulated enhanced stall training and testing requirements for part 121 carriers in the US. It also required remedial training programmes where there was evidence of prior performance deficiencies.
The cadet programmes with reputable operators, and I would suggest that is certainly most if not all of them in the UK, take a low experience pilot with a strong, consistent, monitored, and recognised training history and put them on a very steep early career path. The failure rates of these cadets is extremely low and the performance attainments are usually very high. It is also worth pointing out that your 200 hour cadet fresh into an airline is often a 1000 hour pilot 12 months later, and that numeric experience level is incremental at around 700-800 hours annually thereafter. That experience is relevant, monitored, mentored, and assessed in accordance with the industry norms for all pilots in the respective role. In other words the assessment criteria is the same whether the pilot joined as a cadet from a training school or whether they joined from another airline or from the military. In the early days there is a high degree of mentoring and monitoring but that gradually flattens out over a relatively short period.
The elephant in the room is often the example erroneously cited against low hour cadets. It is the poor training. Weak and inconsistent training background, and lack of relevant competency based training thresholds, that are so often a feature of these accidents. For an airline a lot of these risks are significantly minimized by recruiting low hour pilots from these recognised sources. You may not like that. You may not want to hear that. You may not believe that. However, many airlines do and have done for a good many years.
The AS&FAAEA (2010) wasn't simply a minimum experience threshold, it also encapsulated enhanced stall training and testing requirements for part 121 carriers in the US. It also required remedial training programmes where there was evidence of prior performance deficiencies.
The cadet programmes with reputable operators, and I would suggest that is certainly most if not all of them in the UK, take a low experience pilot with a strong, consistent, monitored, and recognised training history and put them on a very steep early career path. The failure rates of these cadets is extremely low and the performance attainments are usually very high. It is also worth pointing out that your 200 hour cadet fresh into an airline is often a 1000 hour pilot 12 months later, and that numeric experience level is incremental at around 700-800 hours annually thereafter. That experience is relevant, monitored, mentored, and assessed in accordance with the industry norms for all pilots in the respective role. In other words the assessment criteria is the same whether the pilot joined as a cadet from a training school or whether they joined from another airline or from the military. In the early days there is a high degree of mentoring and monitoring but that gradually flattens out over a relatively short period.
The elephant in the room is often the example erroneously cited against low hour cadets. It is the poor training. Weak and inconsistent training background, and lack of relevant competency based training thresholds, that are so often a feature of these accidents. For an airline a lot of these risks are significantly minimized by recruiting low hour pilots from these recognised sources. You may not like that. You may not want to hear that. You may not believe that. However, many airlines do and have done for a good many years.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
But the fact is Bealzebub that they DID raise the min hours requirement, and by doing so they killed off any prospect of 250 hour guys sitting in the RHS of jets in America, no exceptions, regardless of how good the operator is, or how well they're trained or preselected or whatever.
What's your opinion as to why they did that, if you don't consider pilot experience levels to be a major factor in safety?
What's your opinion as to why they did that, if you don't consider pilot experience levels to be a major factor in safety?
Unless your being sponsored by an airline your not a cadet. You are merely a low hour new hire pilot. When I say sponsored I mean the airline is paying for part or all of your training.
If you have an agreement to be employed with an airline at the end of training then your a tagged student.
As I have stated previously, low time guys are hired because they are cheap. Not because they are a blank canvas as everyone keeps repeating. As another poster pointed out, having low time guys in the RHS in a modern jet in Europe isn't really a problem. Good ATC and long runways with an ILS.
Once upon a time the UK had a 700 hour rule for the granting of a CPL. Never had a shortage when that was the case. So when it was lowered to 200 something hours there is all of a sudden a preference to hire fresh guys? That doesn't make sense unless there is some sort of financial incentive to do so.
If you have an agreement to be employed with an airline at the end of training then your a tagged student.
As I have stated previously, low time guys are hired because they are cheap. Not because they are a blank canvas as everyone keeps repeating. As another poster pointed out, having low time guys in the RHS in a modern jet in Europe isn't really a problem. Good ATC and long runways with an ILS.
Once upon a time the UK had a 700 hour rule for the granting of a CPL. Never had a shortage when that was the case. So when it was lowered to 200 something hours there is all of a sudden a preference to hire fresh guys? That doesn't make sense unless there is some sort of financial incentive to do so.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Non sequiturs in the politics of safety
But the fact is Bealzebub that they DID raise the min hours requirement, and by doing so they killed off any prospect of 250 hour guys sitting in the RHS of jets in America, no exceptions, regardless of how good the operator is, or how well they're trained or preselected or whatever.
What's your opinion as to why they did that, if you don't consider pilot experience levels to be a major factor in safety?
What's your opinion as to why they did that, if you don't consider pilot experience levels to be a major factor in safety?
I am not sure my opinion is really relevant to the domestically focused legislation of the United States. If you want a relevant opinion try This one! If that doesn't suit you, scour the internet for any number of opinions that do. Without wishing to be drawn into the cultural or political modus operandi of another nation, what happens in the USA is no doubt (good or bad) suitable to the domestic focus of that nation. As anyone who has ever flown in the USA knows, it is a very different beast to much of the rest of the planet. It is a huge domestic geographic, demographic, and economic entity. It has evolved its own laws, regulations and operational norms to suit its own evolution. What works there...works there! It doesn't follow that necessarily always holds true outside of that country.
The USA has a particularly large aviation culture, and that extends from general aviation right through to airline transport. It has a large military source of obviously well trained pilots. Opportunities have historically been plentiful for the progression of pilots climbing through the traditional ranks. There has rarely been a shortage of good quality candidates vying for the airlines in that country. This is also a country that invariably sets a college degree as a baseline benchmark for airline employment. You don't hear much of a clamour for this to be adopted by other countries? In summary you have a large "stepping stone" culture within US (and North American) career aviation. Over the last two decades there has been a rapid expansion of the "regional sector" of that stepping stone culture. That expansion has drawn in a lot of "experience" that wouldn't (by definition) have ordinarily qualified for the first tier airline jobs. The cut throat economics in part a consequence of deregulation has brought with it some serious problems into this section of the marketplace. This accident isn't about Colgan air, it is about citizens buying tickets on an airplane branded as CONTINENTAL AIRLINES. It isn't about 1500 hours experience, it is about holding an AIRLINE Transport Pilots certificate which by default requires 1500 hours.
If you go back to the actual causes of this accident they boil down to fatigue and poor training. Within domains closer to home this is what airlines do address with their cadet programmes. They are not attracted by disjointed, inconsistent, patchy, unverifiable basic training, or indeed even the merest hint of it. They are looking for a seamless integrated verifiable product. It is significantly less risky. It is significantly less disruptive. It has a tried and tested history. It is relatively easy and quick to introduce tailored training requirements into the ab-intio syllabus. It is cost effective in a highly competitive trading environment. In other words.....It works!
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: On the road
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See what happens when you go down the safety route arguments of no experienced pilots, rather than focus on the destruction of the career path? You end up with these swirling discussions that go round and round and round, all the while missing the points that affect everyone. You fiddle whilst Rome burns.
The "just add hot water-cadet" culture in the UK is harming the profession beyond help. It maybe the haves and the have-nots at the moment, with the naysayers secure in their feathered nests missing the view from the trees to see the problem on the ground. It will affect everyone now there's no longer a "carat" of gold the employer yearns for, even for the top jobs. No value in the commodidity thats being traded to push up trade values and conditions. Surely current employees want to see a future to retirement not working under continuous temp contracts, low pay, closed door systems to airlines unless with CTC channels and crippling fatigue limits?
It's a free for all. Only legislative limits will proctect against fatigue. Whoops too late for that it seems..
The "just add hot water-cadet" culture in the UK is harming the profession beyond help. It maybe the haves and the have-nots at the moment, with the naysayers secure in their feathered nests missing the view from the trees to see the problem on the ground. It will affect everyone now there's no longer a "carat" of gold the employer yearns for, even for the top jobs. No value in the commodidity thats being traded to push up trade values and conditions. Surely current employees want to see a future to retirement not working under continuous temp contracts, low pay, closed door systems to airlines unless with CTC channels and crippling fatigue limits?
It's a free for all. Only legislative limits will proctect against fatigue. Whoops too late for that it seems..
Last edited by Cliff Secord; 4th Aug 2014 at 21:31.
We'll one thing that was a side affect of the 1500 hour rule in the USA is all of a sudden the regionals can't find new hires. Not because of any shortage but because people who already have an ATP won't work for peanuts. This has caused companies to offer sign on bonuses and what not to try and attract people. They will eventually have to improve terms and conditions to get people into seats and this is a good thing.
When I said low hour guys are cheap that is what I mean. The regionals in the US had no trouble finding crew when the minimum was less than 500 hours.
When I said low hour guys are cheap that is what I mean. The regionals in the US had no trouble finding crew when the minimum was less than 500 hours.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Yeah Cliff EVERYTHING on pprune ends up being a circular argument, but, if your aim is to remove the 250 hour guys from whoring the profession and paying to fly etc, what's your plan to achieve that?
Do you actually think you'll achieve anything by b!tching and moaning on the internet and abusing the wannabes for undermining existing terms and conditions, and hope that they'll listen to you and stop flocking to the P2F like lemmings? I've been doing that for 20 years now, and have pretty much given up in disgust these days.
Or do you think it's better to target the safety aspect - which, regardless of what others think, I believe is a real and serious issue - and attempt to highlight the issue in the media and put pressure on legislators?
If there was anything at all that could be legally done about the economic damage they are causing, I'm sure BALPA would have done it already. Randomly slagging off at wannabes on the internet achieves exactly 0% of S.F.A. .
However as the Colgan bill proves, there is still a realistic hope of achieving what we all want to achieve and, I believe, improving flight safety into the bargain, if we can legislate this crap out of existence. But the argument has to made on the grounds of safety not economics if anyone is to pay it any attention.
Do you actually think you'll achieve anything by b!tching and moaning on the internet and abusing the wannabes for undermining existing terms and conditions, and hope that they'll listen to you and stop flocking to the P2F like lemmings? I've been doing that for 20 years now, and have pretty much given up in disgust these days.
Or do you think it's better to target the safety aspect - which, regardless of what others think, I believe is a real and serious issue - and attempt to highlight the issue in the media and put pressure on legislators?
If there was anything at all that could be legally done about the economic damage they are causing, I'm sure BALPA would have done it already. Randomly slagging off at wannabes on the internet achieves exactly 0% of S.F.A. .
However as the Colgan bill proves, there is still a realistic hope of achieving what we all want to achieve and, I believe, improving flight safety into the bargain, if we can legislate this crap out of existence. But the argument has to made on the grounds of safety not economics if anyone is to pay it any attention.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
luke the cadet thing will never go away because it makes so much money for the big boys.
They get to claim the VAT back on the training.
They get to pay reduced NI contributions etc.
Basically they get a free FO for 2-3 years.
Some may go on about being the best method of training etc for their operation but it basically comes down to the accountants seeing it as a cheap method of employing pilots. In fact some it maybe a revenue stream.
They get to claim the VAT back on the training.
They get to pay reduced NI contributions etc.
Basically they get a free FO for 2-3 years.
Some may go on about being the best method of training etc for their operation but it basically comes down to the accountants seeing it as a cheap method of employing pilots. In fact some it maybe a revenue stream.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if it is not an revenue stream, which depends very much on the rules in the country, there is something to be said for a very thoroughly selected, tightly controlled pilot that works to your own SOPs from day one. That guarantees a known quality of the entry level pilots.
Pilots from outside the company sponsored training are a largely unknown entity with unknown training and experiences with more likely than not a lot that needs to be de-trained before you can train them up your own way. Which can lead to problems further down the line when they have to fall back on their basic experience.
Does taking in primarily abinitios or cadets lower T&Cs? Not necessarily. Lufthansa has done nothing else for the last 60 years and their T&Cs are not bad, but of course constantly under attack by management, so far they hold up quite well. Their largest in-country competitor who hires only cadets for the last six or seven years now in fact increased their T&Cs considerably by double digit percentage values. T&Cs and entry level conditions (payed for type ratings for example) are not only something that is enforced by management, they can be negotiated and a unified pilot corps of those that are already in, especially the captains, is paramount for good T&Cs.
Pilots from outside the company sponsored training are a largely unknown entity with unknown training and experiences with more likely than not a lot that needs to be de-trained before you can train them up your own way. Which can lead to problems further down the line when they have to fall back on their basic experience.
Does taking in primarily abinitios or cadets lower T&Cs? Not necessarily. Lufthansa has done nothing else for the last 60 years and their T&Cs are not bad, but of course constantly under attack by management, so far they hold up quite well. Their largest in-country competitor who hires only cadets for the last six or seven years now in fact increased their T&Cs considerably by double digit percentage values. T&Cs and entry level conditions (payed for type ratings for example) are not only something that is enforced by management, they can be negotiated and a unified pilot corps of those that are already in, especially the captains, is paramount for good T&Cs.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: On the road
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good points Luke. I've never intentionally "slagged" off any wannabes or new entrants personally, it's not their fault the system is the way it is. We all started somewhere. It's the way in which they start. The blame is hard to pin down. You maybe right the only way to legislate is based on safety. But I've got to be balanced about this, I'm not sure how I feel about the argument for the average UK FO flying within Europe. I wouldn't want a new FO heading into Afghan or Pakistan in a wide body but we're not talking about that.
Lufthansa I believe (maybe wrong) have real "cadets" who they pay for from the cradle.
Lufthansa I believe (maybe wrong) have real "cadets" who they pay for from the cradle.
Do EK take cadets that aren't locals? No. Does Saudi or Gulf Air? No.
Does Asiana or ANA take non local cadets? Again the answer is no.
Why is that? Do they moan about having to hire all these experienced people with all these "bad habits" everyone is moaning about?
As has been posted before most govts only make state run airlines hire locals because they want to be seen as helping their own citizens. I think in most cases the said airlines would rather not have to hire local cadets.
I think in Europe's case they prefer to hire flying school grads cause they will accept lower T&C's than experienced people.
It looks like the 200 hour blank canvass isn't as sought after as we thought. If it was the way to go why do all these serious international airlines not hire 200 hour grads?
Does Asiana or ANA take non local cadets? Again the answer is no.
Why is that? Do they moan about having to hire all these experienced people with all these "bad habits" everyone is moaning about?
As has been posted before most govts only make state run airlines hire locals because they want to be seen as helping their own citizens. I think in most cases the said airlines would rather not have to hire local cadets.
I think in Europe's case they prefer to hire flying school grads cause they will accept lower T&C's than experienced people.
It looks like the 200 hour blank canvass isn't as sought after as we thought. If it was the way to go why do all these serious international airlines not hire 200 hour grads?
My point is the argument is flawed. The airlines I mentioned don't want any 200 guys anywhere near their equipment. They want experience and lots of it.
If 200 hour guys were so great ( you know that eagerness to learn and being a blank canvass. Especially none of those bad habits from other places either ) then why aren't these guys hiring them?
If 200 hour guys were so great ( you know that eagerness to learn and being a blank canvass. Especially none of those bad habits from other places either ) then why aren't these guys hiring them?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason is pretty clear. It's one thing blooding raw cadets on short haul where they have plenty of opportunity for practice but it's a totally different kettle of fish trying to land a widebodied aircraft when you're tired AND have no experience to count on. Not only that but the experience does not build up very quickly either when you're only doing two landings a month. The potential for damaged aircraft (which already happens at EZY/RYR etc) is far greater and far more of a burden in long haul ops where you can't readily replace an aircraft as quickly (and with greater cost).
Last edited by RexBanner; 6th Aug 2014 at 12:32.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
raw cadets on short haul where they have plenty of opportunity for practice
I don’t really want some raw cadet practicing with me and my family in the back. In the same way I don’t want a surgeon ‘practicing’ on my appendix, or my accountant ‘practicing’ with my company Tax returns.
This simply highlights that the skills required for piloting a medium sized jet can be achieved with ease by a 250 hr cadet, no experience needed, unlike other professions. So I’m not surprised in the decline in Ts&Cs.
In other words.....It works!
The trick is to identify what isnt going to work and stop it.
Will there be a hole in the ground attributed to a 250hr Cadet? We don’t know.
But we do know the shouts of “I told you so” from across the industry if it does happen will probably be louder than the impact itself. And that should tell us something.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Age: 41
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're licensed, rated and legal it's not practicing! If these dudes were flying under supervision from instructors without licenses then these arguments would be valid. But they're not.
Anyone licensed and rated can land fly the jet and has demonstrated and ability to land it consistently and safely. 'Practise' helps with slick CDAs, efficient fuel use and pax comfort…
As an aside, that Typhoon pilot who escorted the Qatar jet into MAN yesterday could well have been a limited combat ready guy straight out of the OCU with around 500 hours total and he's got live weapons! No one complains about that as its accepted that mil training is very good and has high calibre candidates. Flying a modern jet really isn't that hard!
Anyone licensed and rated can land fly the jet and has demonstrated and ability to land it consistently and safely. 'Practise' helps with slick CDAs, efficient fuel use and pax comfort…
As an aside, that Typhoon pilot who escorted the Qatar jet into MAN yesterday could well have been a limited combat ready guy straight out of the OCU with around 500 hours total and he's got live weapons! No one complains about that as its accepted that mil training is very good and has high calibre candidates. Flying a modern jet really isn't that hard!
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nail on the head Uber Pilot.
My question is always: How do I get experience, If I dont get the chance to OBTAIN experience?
Those experienced pilots got their experience also somewhere.
A fair mix of experienced and fresh Grads would be great. Especially on Short and Medium Haul flights. Best even starting with TP's, because those planes have no extensive AP and you fly average between FL180 and FL250. Exactly where there could be not so nice weather. You have to deal with that. You really learn to fly this way.
No Auto land, No Auto throttle etc. MAX Cat II landings, which are also not that easy to do without Auto Land.
If done this for few years, then move on to Medium Jet.
Just saying
.
My question is always: How do I get experience, If I dont get the chance to OBTAIN experience?
Those experienced pilots got their experience also somewhere.
A fair mix of experienced and fresh Grads would be great. Especially on Short and Medium Haul flights. Best even starting with TP's, because those planes have no extensive AP and you fly average between FL180 and FL250. Exactly where there could be not so nice weather. You have to deal with that. You really learn to fly this way.
No Auto land, No Auto throttle etc. MAX Cat II landings, which are also not that easy to do without Auto Land.
If done this for few years, then move on to Medium Jet.
Just saying
.