Flying Without Wings - the new generation?
Thread Starter
Flying Without Wings - the new generation?
Flying Without Wings - TIME
Thoughts?
Is this the future of airline pilots?
As I personally aspire to make it into the airlines, and I wish to make my way through GA, I had particular gripe with this comment:
"Roei Ganzarski, Alteon's sales chief. "All those hours flying alone don't necessarily prepare you to be a better airline pilot, to work in a crew environment with a large, fast jet."
So going by his example, gaining flying experience such as a GA single pilot IFR, limited avionics, flying an approach down to minimas in driving rain, with only yourself to keep you alive, apparently is not as good experience as someone who has learnt to fly via sim work ? It wont make you a "better" airline pilot?
Liu Chang isn't your typical airline pilot. The 24-year-old from Harbin, in northeast China, trained in biology, doesn't have a driver's license, and cannot legally fly a small Cessna. But in November he'll be qualified as first officer on a Boeing 737.
Chang, who likes to be called Stanley, had never even flown as a passenger when he saw an ad seeking trainee pilots for Xiamen Airlines. A bit bored by biology and lured by the prospect of a big pay rise, he applied for the job. Eyesight was the strictest test he needed to pass. "Experience," he recalls, "was not important."
The experience is coming today in Brisbane, Australia, where Stanley and five other trainees from Xiamen and China Eastern airlines are part of a trial that Boeing, through its pilot-training subsidiary Alteon, thinks could change the way pilots are trained worldwide.
The radical idea is to teach novices to fly a modern jet airliner in a little over a year. Unlike the traditional route to the cockpit, this course places limited emphasis on flying real planes; instead it focuses on training in simulators and teamwork. "Each person finds different things difficult," Stanley says of the challenge of handling the switches, knobs and screens in front of him and the responsibility for a hundred lives behind. "For some it will be memory, for others it will be handling skill. I had never driven a car, so motor skills — handling skills — were not very good. The first landing [of a propeller plane] was hard, but after practice I can do it."
The trial is being closely watched by the international airline industry, which is expected to add more than 29,000 planes in the next two decades. Alteon says that will require 18,000 new pilots. While the U.S. has a pilot surplus, most other countries — and especially China and India — are struggling to keep up with demand.
The big question is, is it safe? Historically, someone wanting to pilot a passenger jet tended to start on small planes and move up, a process that might take two or three years, perhaps longer. The Air Transport Pilot's Licence needed to captain a passenger jet requires extensive flying experience: at least 1,500 hours in countries like the U.S. and Australia.
Programmed Emergencies
alteon claims pilots from this course — which can train a novice in 13-15 months — will be more competent than their conventionally trained peers. Stanley and the others have had 95 hours in a single-engine plane (14.5 hours solo) and will have done 260 hours in simulators by graduation. They won't qualify to fly small planes, but once they satisfy their airlines with a dozen take-offs and landings in real 737s, they will be licensed as first officers in passenger jets. "To train to be a commercial airline pilot, you don't need to cross the country on your own in a little propeller plane," argues Roei Ganzarski, Alteon's sales chief. "All those hours flying alone don't necessarily prepare you to be a better airline pilot, to work in a crew environment with a large, fast jet."
It's a philosophy reflected in the International Civil Aviation Organization's multi-crew pilot's license (MPL). Introduced in 2006, this was the first major change to licensing since 1948. It requires some training in small piston-engined planes — as little as 10 hours solo — but the bulk of the required 240 hours' flying is done in simulators where emergencies like engine trouble and storms can be programmed in.
Not everyone is convinced. "We have concerns about how individuals would react in an emergency," says Lawrie Cox, industrial manager at the Australian Federation of Air Pilots. "It's easy to do in a simulator, but when you are confronted with it, it's an entirely different situation. You don't have a depth of feeling." Simulator training, he says, "is a short-cut process because of the world-wide shortage of pilots ... and the view we have is you can't beat experience."
Qantas is also wary. Chief pilot Captain Chris Manning sounds unenthusiastic, saying the airline sees "no advantage" in the MPL. Manning's view disappoints Captain Ray Heiniger, a former Qantas chief pilot and director of training. "This is specialised training," says Heiniger, who now works with Alteon and helped train the Chinese students on Diamond-40 propeller planes. "We train them specifically for the right-hand seat of an airliner from day one. They are taught multi-crew skills so they operate as a team. In the end, it will produce a better-trained pilot."
Chang, who likes to be called Stanley, had never even flown as a passenger when he saw an ad seeking trainee pilots for Xiamen Airlines. A bit bored by biology and lured by the prospect of a big pay rise, he applied for the job. Eyesight was the strictest test he needed to pass. "Experience," he recalls, "was not important."
The experience is coming today in Brisbane, Australia, where Stanley and five other trainees from Xiamen and China Eastern airlines are part of a trial that Boeing, through its pilot-training subsidiary Alteon, thinks could change the way pilots are trained worldwide.
The radical idea is to teach novices to fly a modern jet airliner in a little over a year. Unlike the traditional route to the cockpit, this course places limited emphasis on flying real planes; instead it focuses on training in simulators and teamwork. "Each person finds different things difficult," Stanley says of the challenge of handling the switches, knobs and screens in front of him and the responsibility for a hundred lives behind. "For some it will be memory, for others it will be handling skill. I had never driven a car, so motor skills — handling skills — were not very good. The first landing [of a propeller plane] was hard, but after practice I can do it."
The trial is being closely watched by the international airline industry, which is expected to add more than 29,000 planes in the next two decades. Alteon says that will require 18,000 new pilots. While the U.S. has a pilot surplus, most other countries — and especially China and India — are struggling to keep up with demand.
The big question is, is it safe? Historically, someone wanting to pilot a passenger jet tended to start on small planes and move up, a process that might take two or three years, perhaps longer. The Air Transport Pilot's Licence needed to captain a passenger jet requires extensive flying experience: at least 1,500 hours in countries like the U.S. and Australia.
Programmed Emergencies
alteon claims pilots from this course — which can train a novice in 13-15 months — will be more competent than their conventionally trained peers. Stanley and the others have had 95 hours in a single-engine plane (14.5 hours solo) and will have done 260 hours in simulators by graduation. They won't qualify to fly small planes, but once they satisfy their airlines with a dozen take-offs and landings in real 737s, they will be licensed as first officers in passenger jets. "To train to be a commercial airline pilot, you don't need to cross the country on your own in a little propeller plane," argues Roei Ganzarski, Alteon's sales chief. "All those hours flying alone don't necessarily prepare you to be a better airline pilot, to work in a crew environment with a large, fast jet."
It's a philosophy reflected in the International Civil Aviation Organization's multi-crew pilot's license (MPL). Introduced in 2006, this was the first major change to licensing since 1948. It requires some training in small piston-engined planes — as little as 10 hours solo — but the bulk of the required 240 hours' flying is done in simulators where emergencies like engine trouble and storms can be programmed in.
Not everyone is convinced. "We have concerns about how individuals would react in an emergency," says Lawrie Cox, industrial manager at the Australian Federation of Air Pilots. "It's easy to do in a simulator, but when you are confronted with it, it's an entirely different situation. You don't have a depth of feeling." Simulator training, he says, "is a short-cut process because of the world-wide shortage of pilots ... and the view we have is you can't beat experience."
Qantas is also wary. Chief pilot Captain Chris Manning sounds unenthusiastic, saying the airline sees "no advantage" in the MPL. Manning's view disappoints Captain Ray Heiniger, a former Qantas chief pilot and director of training. "This is specialised training," says Heiniger, who now works with Alteon and helped train the Chinese students on Diamond-40 propeller planes. "We train them specifically for the right-hand seat of an airliner from day one. They are taught multi-crew skills so they operate as a team. In the end, it will produce a better-trained pilot."
Is this the future of airline pilots?
As I personally aspire to make it into the airlines, and I wish to make my way through GA, I had particular gripe with this comment:
"Roei Ganzarski, Alteon's sales chief. "All those hours flying alone don't necessarily prepare you to be a better airline pilot, to work in a crew environment with a large, fast jet."
So going by his example, gaining flying experience such as a GA single pilot IFR, limited avionics, flying an approach down to minimas in driving rain, with only yourself to keep you alive, apparently is not as good experience as someone who has learnt to fly via sim work ? It wont make you a "better" airline pilot?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you have a gripe with that comment? It comes down to how closely the modern jet cockpit environment resembles the GA single pilot IFR experience you describe. Clearly, these people dont think there is a lot of value in that experience. Since military jet training is conducted in closer to the "straight to jets" method than the "thousands of prop hours" method, you would have to say there is some merit there.
IMHO, it is more to do with the selection of the candidate. The thousands of hours single pilot IFR ops just serves to prove the candidate is up to it.
IMHO, it is more to do with the selection of the candidate. The thousands of hours single pilot IFR ops just serves to prove the candidate is up to it.
trained in biology, doesn't have a driver's license, and cannot legally fly a small Cessna. But in November he'll be qualified as first officer on a Boeing 737.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wherever the job takes me...
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had never driven a car, so motor skills — handling skills — were not very good. The first landing [of a propeller plane] was hard, but after practice I can do it."
I don't believe people trained this way will have the required mindset, motivation and guts that may only be necessary once in their careers, but of course the managers who foist them on the public won't be on that aircraft when it happens. The current methods, I believe, help "self select" the right people, since a certain amount of determination is required to go through all the hoops.
One of my sports is sailing, I've been doing it since I was nine, starting in dinghies. When I sail on ocean racing yachts, I can tell within a few minutes if the skipper learned to sail in little boats or not. The reactions of someone who started in small boats are about a second faster and control movements are made with much more precision and authority because they learned to sail by the backside and instinctively understand what forces are being applied to the vessel and how to counter them.
I also find flying the lightest aircraft in the local fleet (Evector Sportstar) improves my performance on bigger aircraft for the same reason. I know this may not be appropriate to a computer controlled fly by wire jet, but......it's my opinion.
I couldn't resist this though...
One of my sports is sailing, I've been doing it since I was nine, starting in dinghies. When I sail on ocean racing yachts, I can tell within a few minutes if the skipper learned to sail in little boats or not. The reactions of someone who started in small boats are about a second faster and control movements are made with much more precision and authority because they learned to sail by the backside and instinctively understand what forces are being applied to the vessel and how to counter them.
I also find flying the lightest aircraft in the local fleet (Evector Sportstar) improves my performance on bigger aircraft for the same reason. I know this may not be appropriate to a computer controlled fly by wire jet, but......it's my opinion.
I couldn't resist this though...
Sunfish isn't your typical brain surgeon. The 24-year-old from Harbin, in northeast China, trained in biology, doesn't have a driver's license, and cannot legally prescribe so much as a laxative. But in November he'll be qualified as a brain surgeon.
Sunfish, who likes to be called Sunny, had never even removed a splinter or squeezed a pimple when he saw an ad seeking trainee brain surgeons for The Alfred Hospital. A bit bored by biology and lured by the prospect of a big pay rise, he applied for the job. Eyesight was the strictest test he needed to pass. "Experience," he recalls, "was not important."
The experience is coming today in Brisbane, Australia, where Sunny and five other trainees from The Alfred are part of a trial that Boeing, through its surgeon-training subsidiary Alteon, thinks could change the way surgeons are trained worldwide.
The radical idea is to teach novices to mess with peoples brains in a little over a year. Unlike the traditional route to the operating theatre, this course places limited emphasis on curing real people; instead it focuses on training in simulators and teamwork. "Each person finds different things difficult," Sunny says of the challenge of handling the scalpels, drills and forceps in front of him and the responsibility for a life on the table. "For some it will be memory, for others it will be handling skill. I had never driven a car, so motor skills — handling skills — were not very good. The first handling [of a constipated teenager] was hard, but after practice I can do it."
The trial is being closely watched by the international hospital industry, which is expected to add more than 29,000,000 patients in the next two decades. Alteon says that will require 18,000 new brain surgeons. While the U.S. has a surgeon surplus, most other countries — and especially China and India — are struggling to keep up with demand.
The big question is, is it safe? Historically, someone wanting to brain surgeon tended to start with basic medical training and move up, a process that might take two or three years, perhaps longer. The Australian Medical Association Licence needed to perform in an operating theatre requires extensive medical experience: at least 1,500 hours in countries like the U.S. and Australia.
Programmed Emergencies
alteon claims surgeons from this course — which can train a novice in 13-15 months — will be more competent than their conventionally trained peers. Sunny and the others have had 95 hours of basic GP consulting (14.5 hours solo) and will have done 260 hours in operating theatre simulators by graduation. They won't qualify to operate as a GP, but once they satisfy their hospitals with a dozen ingrown toenail resections and hysterectomies in real patients, they will be licensed as surgeons. "To train to be a surgeon, you don't need to be able to use an ear syringe on an old aged pensioner," argues Roei Ganzarski, Alteon's sales chief. "All those hours injecting antibiotics into screaming babies alone don't necessarily prepare you to be a better surgeon, to work in a crew environment in an operating theatre."
It's a philosophy reflected in the International Medical Organization's multi-crew surgeons license (MSL). Introduced in 2006, this was the first major change to licensing since 1948. It requires some training in GP procedures — as little as 10 hours solo — but the bulk of the required 240 hours' operating is done in simulators where emergencies like heart failure and brain farts can be programmed in.
Not everyone is convinced. "We have concerns about how individuals would react in an emergency," says Lawrie Cox, industrial manager at the Australian Surgeons Association. "It's easy to do in a simulator, but when you are confronted with it, it's an entirely different situation. You don't have a depth of feeling." Simulator training, he says, "is a short-cut process because of the world-wide shortage of surgeons ... and the view we have is you can't beat experience."
The Royal North Shore hospital is also wary. Chief surgeon Doctor Chris Manning sounds unenthusiastic, saying the hospital sees "no advantage" in the MSL. Manning's view disappoints Doctor Ray Heiniger, a former North Shore Chief Surgeon and director of training. "This is specialised training," says Heiniger, who now works with Alteon and helped train the Chinese students as gynaecologists. "We train them specifically for the lead role in an operating theatre from day one. They are taught multi-crew skills so they operate as a team. In the end, it will produce a better-trained surgeon."
Sunfish, who likes to be called Sunny, had never even removed a splinter or squeezed a pimple when he saw an ad seeking trainee brain surgeons for The Alfred Hospital. A bit bored by biology and lured by the prospect of a big pay rise, he applied for the job. Eyesight was the strictest test he needed to pass. "Experience," he recalls, "was not important."
The experience is coming today in Brisbane, Australia, where Sunny and five other trainees from The Alfred are part of a trial that Boeing, through its surgeon-training subsidiary Alteon, thinks could change the way surgeons are trained worldwide.
The radical idea is to teach novices to mess with peoples brains in a little over a year. Unlike the traditional route to the operating theatre, this course places limited emphasis on curing real people; instead it focuses on training in simulators and teamwork. "Each person finds different things difficult," Sunny says of the challenge of handling the scalpels, drills and forceps in front of him and the responsibility for a life on the table. "For some it will be memory, for others it will be handling skill. I had never driven a car, so motor skills — handling skills — were not very good. The first handling [of a constipated teenager] was hard, but after practice I can do it."
The trial is being closely watched by the international hospital industry, which is expected to add more than 29,000,000 patients in the next two decades. Alteon says that will require 18,000 new brain surgeons. While the U.S. has a surgeon surplus, most other countries — and especially China and India — are struggling to keep up with demand.
The big question is, is it safe? Historically, someone wanting to brain surgeon tended to start with basic medical training and move up, a process that might take two or three years, perhaps longer. The Australian Medical Association Licence needed to perform in an operating theatre requires extensive medical experience: at least 1,500 hours in countries like the U.S. and Australia.
Programmed Emergencies
alteon claims surgeons from this course — which can train a novice in 13-15 months — will be more competent than their conventionally trained peers. Sunny and the others have had 95 hours of basic GP consulting (14.5 hours solo) and will have done 260 hours in operating theatre simulators by graduation. They won't qualify to operate as a GP, but once they satisfy their hospitals with a dozen ingrown toenail resections and hysterectomies in real patients, they will be licensed as surgeons. "To train to be a surgeon, you don't need to be able to use an ear syringe on an old aged pensioner," argues Roei Ganzarski, Alteon's sales chief. "All those hours injecting antibiotics into screaming babies alone don't necessarily prepare you to be a better surgeon, to work in a crew environment in an operating theatre."
It's a philosophy reflected in the International Medical Organization's multi-crew surgeons license (MSL). Introduced in 2006, this was the first major change to licensing since 1948. It requires some training in GP procedures — as little as 10 hours solo — but the bulk of the required 240 hours' operating is done in simulators where emergencies like heart failure and brain farts can be programmed in.
Not everyone is convinced. "We have concerns about how individuals would react in an emergency," says Lawrie Cox, industrial manager at the Australian Surgeons Association. "It's easy to do in a simulator, but when you are confronted with it, it's an entirely different situation. You don't have a depth of feeling." Simulator training, he says, "is a short-cut process because of the world-wide shortage of surgeons ... and the view we have is you can't beat experience."
The Royal North Shore hospital is also wary. Chief surgeon Doctor Chris Manning sounds unenthusiastic, saying the hospital sees "no advantage" in the MSL. Manning's view disappoints Doctor Ray Heiniger, a former North Shore Chief Surgeon and director of training. "This is specialised training," says Heiniger, who now works with Alteon and helped train the Chinese students as gynaecologists. "We train them specifically for the lead role in an operating theatre from day one. They are taught multi-crew skills so they operate as a team. In the end, it will produce a better-trained surgeon."
Last edited by Sunfish; 19th Sep 2008 at 21:21.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Very funny, sunfish, and although the analogy between a brain surgeon and a pilot is stretching it a bit apart from the responsibility for human lives, it's actually scary ****.
I don't want to be in the back when that Chinese kid has to handle his first emergency. And I can't believe regulatory authorities are letting it happen
I don't want to be in the back when that Chinese kid has to handle his first emergency. And I can't believe regulatory authorities are letting it happen
I'm sure a dozen take off and landings will equip them for the wide variety of situations they will face in this phase of flight alone, during the course of their "careers".
Jesus wept!!!
Jesus wept!!!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
will have the required mindset, motivation and guts that may only be necessary
And just how often are FO's required to land an airliner solo?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And just how often are FO's required to land an airliner solo?
To have an F/O who may not be able to bring an aircraft back safely should the Capt become incapacitated would just be reducing some of the redundanies we have on board - lining up another hole in the swiss cheese as it were..
I also believe that there is a psychological factor in play here to. We don't know how old mate will react under the pump in a real aeroplane. You can simulate all you like but in the back of your mind you know that it's a simulator and you can't die. Whole different ballgame when it's real and you can die. The guy could fall to pieces for all we know. However those who have actually have some experience in flying real aeroplanes would have at least had a few emergencies in their time of some description and, stuffed a few things up. You learn from these mistakes and hopefully they don't kill you. Once on the line you can't hit the sim reset button.
For those who say 'the airforce do it this way' a few things to remember.
1. The airforce only recruits a small number of people, so can be very selective
2. The Airforce flies in real aircraft, albeit high performance ones
3. No airline in the world wants to have a training budget that looks like the Airforce.
For those who say 'the airforce do it this way' a few things to remember.
1. The airforce only recruits a small number of people, so can be very selective
2. The Airforce flies in real aircraft, albeit high performance ones
3. No airline in the world wants to have a training budget that looks like the Airforce.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And just how often are FO's required to land an airliner solo
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the future if they can afford the simulators.
This will be very unpopular with many. Flying schools do not like this sort of competition. They like to be able to train 50 or more pilots for every real airline job opportunity.
Those in the GA industry who are looking for that airline job do not like this sort of competition. Understandably. Pilots have to plan years ahead and commit time and money. Airlines have resisted any form of commitment.
The airlines do not want to have an ab initio training program, as they are not sure of required numbers. They would much rather pilots trained themselves and waited in a big pool. This leads to much uncertainty and almost desparate pilots, and a very low experience level and instability in GA. Pilots who are broke and uncertain of their future can be easily exploited.
So, how do we keep everyone happy and make the system work properly? By getting the airlines invoved in flying training (maybe by contracts with existing flying schools for specific numbers of pre-selected trainees) Getting airlines to commit to and sign provisional agreements with trainees and properly plan for future intakes. By having a "multi crew licence" for airline pilots so everyone knows where they may be going (or not going). This would not be necessary if airlines would plan properly and give some sort of committment to trainees.
Let's face it. Would a new pilot with 260 hours of glass cockpit training be able to do useful work in the Simpson desert in a C206? He would learn things the simulator did not teach him. Would he be trying to develope his C206 skills and desert knowledge, or would he be just trying to get out of there?
But the glass cockpit experience would be invaluable for airlines. And if you are aiming to be an airline pilot it makes sense to start the multi crew training on day one. This does not happen with the present system.
The simulator won't kill you, so the multi crew pilot will not have experienced that real fear that makes you pay real attention to the detail on the next flight ("i'll never do this again") The miltary do not have a monopoly on the "mindset, determination and guts" And it sorts out the men from the boys. Some duds will get through the simulator training. (yes some have)
There's merit in both systems,and room for both. There will be a transition period like we have now, when both will operate. But I think our airlines may have got a wake up call recently when they found that there was no longer an inexhaustable pool of pilots whenever they wanted them. Maybe they will start working with the pilots for mutual benefit.???????
One of the worst things that has happened is that some pilots have spent years waiting in GA and may now be too old and/or too experienced for airlines that want cheap, pilots they can bond for a long period.
Those in the GA industry who are looking for that airline job do not like this sort of competition. Understandably. Pilots have to plan years ahead and commit time and money. Airlines have resisted any form of commitment.
The airlines do not want to have an ab initio training program, as they are not sure of required numbers. They would much rather pilots trained themselves and waited in a big pool. This leads to much uncertainty and almost desparate pilots, and a very low experience level and instability in GA. Pilots who are broke and uncertain of their future can be easily exploited.
So, how do we keep everyone happy and make the system work properly? By getting the airlines invoved in flying training (maybe by contracts with existing flying schools for specific numbers of pre-selected trainees) Getting airlines to commit to and sign provisional agreements with trainees and properly plan for future intakes. By having a "multi crew licence" for airline pilots so everyone knows where they may be going (or not going). This would not be necessary if airlines would plan properly and give some sort of committment to trainees.
Let's face it. Would a new pilot with 260 hours of glass cockpit training be able to do useful work in the Simpson desert in a C206? He would learn things the simulator did not teach him. Would he be trying to develope his C206 skills and desert knowledge, or would he be just trying to get out of there?
But the glass cockpit experience would be invaluable for airlines. And if you are aiming to be an airline pilot it makes sense to start the multi crew training on day one. This does not happen with the present system.
The simulator won't kill you, so the multi crew pilot will not have experienced that real fear that makes you pay real attention to the detail on the next flight ("i'll never do this again") The miltary do not have a monopoly on the "mindset, determination and guts" And it sorts out the men from the boys. Some duds will get through the simulator training. (yes some have)
There's merit in both systems,and room for both. There will be a transition period like we have now, when both will operate. But I think our airlines may have got a wake up call recently when they found that there was no longer an inexhaustable pool of pilots whenever they wanted them. Maybe they will start working with the pilots for mutual benefit.???????
One of the worst things that has happened is that some pilots have spent years waiting in GA and may now be too old and/or too experienced for airlines that want cheap, pilots they can bond for a long period.
Last edited by bushy; 20th Sep 2008 at 07:37.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For sure, Bushy, this is unpopular- especially with pilots who do the hard yards in GA. But this sort of low-hour airline pilot exists already. eg. Emirates.
The "how will they cope with an emergency" type posts raise an interesting question: Who would you want at the controls during an incapacitation scenario
1. Traditionally trained F/O with 2000 hrs; 1990 hours on various types from C172, C206 etc thru to turbo props, and 10 hours on B737
2. Simulator boy with 2000 hours, of which 10 hours on C172, 500 sim hours on B737, and 1490 hours in the B737
3. Airline cadet with 200 prop hours and 1800 right seat B737 ?
The "how will they cope with an emergency" type posts raise an interesting question: Who would you want at the controls during an incapacitation scenario
1. Traditionally trained F/O with 2000 hrs; 1990 hours on various types from C172, C206 etc thru to turbo props, and 10 hours on B737
2. Simulator boy with 2000 hours, of which 10 hours on C172, 500 sim hours on B737, and 1490 hours in the B737
3. Airline cadet with 200 prop hours and 1800 right seat B737 ?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before anyone gets too worried, can you really see CASA implementing the MPL in the near future?
The speed they do things it could be 2030 before the MPL is introduced within Australia and Qantas, Virgin etc can use it.
The speed they do things it could be 2030 before the MPL is introduced within Australia and Qantas, Virgin etc can use it.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: OZ
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mmm
Following on from what Blogsey states;
If the military can train pilots to a high standard flying Orions, 737's, Hercs etc within a similar timeframe, then why not civilian as well?
Dont attack me, just throwing it out there for discussion.
If the military can train pilots to a high standard flying Orions, 737's, Hercs etc within a similar timeframe, then why not civilian as well?
Dont attack me, just throwing it out there for discussion.
When I said "Self select", I mean it. I never, ever, want to fly with a person who is a pilot because he (she) was:
I will go to extreme lengths to avoid flying in any aircraft where the pilot has not started by gritting their teeth, walking into a flying school, and asking about how they can become a pilot, and then doing the hard yards, starting with hours in a beaten up C150.
My view is that this is going to turn out to be one of the most expensive mistakes ever made by airline management, even if only because of labour turnover, since if someone is doing this job for the pay, they will leave it for higher pay, or when they get "bored" like the subject who was "bored" by biology.
As for what a multi crew licence holder does when their computer controlled aircraft stops behaving as it should, like the BA 777 whose thrust levers didn't respond at LHR, I'll leave that to your imagination. My guess is they will look over their shoulder to see if they are in the sim.
I will avoid any airline that trains it's pilots this way, permanently.
...A bit bored by biology and lured by the prospect of a big pay rise,
My view is that this is going to turn out to be one of the most expensive mistakes ever made by airline management, even if only because of labour turnover, since if someone is doing this job for the pay, they will leave it for higher pay, or when they get "bored" like the subject who was "bored" by biology.
As for what a multi crew licence holder does when their computer controlled aircraft stops behaving as it should, like the BA 777 whose thrust levers didn't respond at LHR, I'll leave that to your imagination. My guess is they will look over their shoulder to see if they are in the sim.
I will avoid any airline that trains it's pilots this way, permanently.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: ...second left, past the lights.
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Amen brother
Good parallel with the sailing earlier also.
There is no substitute for experience, gained/learnt from those moments where the sheepskin seat cover was puckered up your backside, whether it be GA or Jets!
Good parallel with the sailing earlier also.
There is no substitute for experience, gained/learnt from those moments where the sheepskin seat cover was puckered up your backside, whether it be GA or Jets!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UAV's have been around for some time now. MPL's are just being investigated. Put the two together and the MPL can be used solely to monitor the instruments with strict instructions not to touch anything except the seat belt, the call button and the cockpit doorknob. If something goes wrong, call the central office and a real pilot can fly the aircraft.
Seasonally Adjusted
For those who say 'the airforce do it this way' a few things to remember.
1. The airforce only recruits a small number of people, so can be very selective
2. The Airforce flies in real aircraft, albeit high performance ones
3. No airline in the world wants to have a training budget that looks like the Airforce.
1. The airforce only recruits a small number of people, so can be very selective
2. The Airforce flies in real aircraft, albeit high performance ones
3. No airline in the world wants to have a training budget that looks like the Airforce.
