SLF Can you give me your opinion Please
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLF Can you give me your opinion Please
Hi
There are threads running in other forums about this but im not sure how much of it is read by SLF so i just wanted to hear the feelings of SLF.
Certain Airlines are allowing 250 Hour Pilots who have bought a Type Rating, for example on an Airbus, to pay the airline in return for training them to obtain around 200 hours on type. They are occupying the Co-Pilots seat, flying the aircraft on revenue flights and are then dumped on the dole at the end of their training because they are replaced by another pay to fly candidate. Meanwhile, there are 5,000 hour pilots on the dole who cant get a job.
250 hours is about the absolute minimum required to get a Licence.
Is this something that concerns you on any level?
Regards
GW
There are threads running in other forums about this but im not sure how much of it is read by SLF so i just wanted to hear the feelings of SLF.
Certain Airlines are allowing 250 Hour Pilots who have bought a Type Rating, for example on an Airbus, to pay the airline in return for training them to obtain around 200 hours on type. They are occupying the Co-Pilots seat, flying the aircraft on revenue flights and are then dumped on the dole at the end of their training because they are replaced by another pay to fly candidate. Meanwhile, there are 5,000 hour pilots on the dole who cant get a job.
250 hours is about the absolute minimum required to get a Licence.
Is this something that concerns you on any level?
Regards
GW
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will bite.
Yes, this does concern me for two reasons. The first is that the FO's experience is very limited. I would definitely prefer higher minimums for the job. The second is that the airline employer is now conflicted. Instead of the SLF being their sole client to whom they owe a duty of safe transport, part of the airline's revenue is coming from a FO paying for his seat. Assuring this secondary revenue source is in conflict with the interest of the SLF. That is, the airline may not be willing to exercise adequate quality control (as desired by the SLF) over whether the FO should be permitted to fly because doing so may reduce the airline's revenue.
What is the solution? Greater transparency. Perhaps airlines should be required to file public data on both their minimum standards for crew, as well as statistics comparing their crew's actual credentials to these minimum standards. For example, we minimally require 500 total hours and 50 hours on type to be a FO, 2000 total hours and 500 hours on type to be a captain; our FO's actually average 1500/400 and our captains 3500/2000.
Yes, this does concern me for two reasons. The first is that the FO's experience is very limited. I would definitely prefer higher minimums for the job. The second is that the airline employer is now conflicted. Instead of the SLF being their sole client to whom they owe a duty of safe transport, part of the airline's revenue is coming from a FO paying for his seat. Assuring this secondary revenue source is in conflict with the interest of the SLF. That is, the airline may not be willing to exercise adequate quality control (as desired by the SLF) over whether the FO should be permitted to fly because doing so may reduce the airline's revenue.
What is the solution? Greater transparency. Perhaps airlines should be required to file public data on both their minimum standards for crew, as well as statistics comparing their crew's actual credentials to these minimum standards. For example, we minimally require 500 total hours and 50 hours on type to be a FO, 2000 total hours and 500 hours on type to be a captain; our FO's actually average 1500/400 and our captains 3500/2000.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,813
Received 140 Likes
on
65 Posts
Bite 2 ... why do I fly BA?
Enough said?
Enough said?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 1,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this something that concerns you on any level?
If this is not the case, then too bloody true it is of concern.
Firstly, it is without doubt putting additional pressures on the Captain particularly if he/she does not have a natural ability as a trainer.
Secondly, on the grounds of safety. A low-hour trainee implies a very real lack of experience which, in the event of incapacitation of the Captain, could jeopardise the safety of the flight.
Thirdly, how the hell has it got to this sorry state. Are modern airliners that easy to fly that they only really need one pilot .... Well that is the way it seems to be heading. How on earth can anyone see a career as a pilot with a system like this, and what state will the industry be in when all the current Captains reach retirement.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GW - What exactly would you like an opinion on? Are you saying that that 250 hour licensed pilots are unsafe? How many accidents or even near misses have been attributed to pilots granted licenses on the 250 hour basis? It would appear from your question that you feel the practise is unsafe. Some real facts would be helpful to form an opinion.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i cant load the question. I have asked it. Within the context of the original question, my input cannot be any more than the question i have asked. Im just interested to hear from passengers as to what they they think about people paying to fly airliners as opposed to be being paid to fly them.
Regards
GW
Regards
GW
When seated somewhere in row 23, I have very little information indeed as to whether the people in the white shirts up front know what each button does, or what all the lights mean - partly because access to those 2 people while they are working is very limited. The nearest I get is listening to the tone of an intercom and hoping the person speaking sounds like they've done this before. I've experienced cases where one of the cabin crew has been little more than a spotty teenager looking awkward fumbling their way through the safety demo - had there been a serious safety issue, I do not think that individual would have been able to contribute much.
By the time I've made an assesment of the individuals, it's usually far too late to do anything about it. Asking to get off once the doors are closed is usually met with threats backed up by the Air Navigation Order to do whatever the crew tell me, even if they tell me to bark like a dog. Being fined thousands of pounds by an airport for trespass on the ramp because I thought a pilot didn't know what he was doing is not a great choice.
The only possible access I have to the pilots is on arrival (I exclude the case of when one nips out to the toilet mid-flight) - by which time any concerns about a specific individual are of near zero relevance - they're departing in 25 mins to fly somewhere else, while I've only just arrived and will almost certainly fly next time with a diferent set of people. I am obliged to delegate this assessment of individual pilots or airline policy to the formal regulator of flying in the UK, namely the CAA or its counterparts elsewhere in the world. Word of mouth about an airline from one person in the pub or similiar is simply unreliable.
I do know that pilots generally have a strong desire not to die during flight or cause any fatalities (I suspect this is bad for one's career), and that an airline doesn't like all the additional costs that are incurred when fatal accidents occur. Both these facts should motivate airline policy and pilots to be sensible most of the time. That said, people sometimes will pretend they know what to do when they don't, if only to maintain their pride. I am also reassured by some corners of the press loving to run an aviation safety story, even if trivial, superficial and factually incorrect - keeps airlines on their toes
I am also aware that there seems to be a tendency within the industry to close ranks when something happens and try to resolve problems without too much getting out to the press - it took a huge public argument before the EU agreed to publish an "airlines banned from the EU" list. I don't expect any kind of transparency in the next few years along the lines of forcing airlines to formally disclose any kind of meaningful policy beyond a trivial (and not always correct) 'safety is our number 1 priority'
By the time I've made an assesment of the individuals, it's usually far too late to do anything about it. Asking to get off once the doors are closed is usually met with threats backed up by the Air Navigation Order to do whatever the crew tell me, even if they tell me to bark like a dog. Being fined thousands of pounds by an airport for trespass on the ramp because I thought a pilot didn't know what he was doing is not a great choice.
The only possible access I have to the pilots is on arrival (I exclude the case of when one nips out to the toilet mid-flight) - by which time any concerns about a specific individual are of near zero relevance - they're departing in 25 mins to fly somewhere else, while I've only just arrived and will almost certainly fly next time with a diferent set of people. I am obliged to delegate this assessment of individual pilots or airline policy to the formal regulator of flying in the UK, namely the CAA or its counterparts elsewhere in the world. Word of mouth about an airline from one person in the pub or similiar is simply unreliable.
I do know that pilots generally have a strong desire not to die during flight or cause any fatalities (I suspect this is bad for one's career), and that an airline doesn't like all the additional costs that are incurred when fatal accidents occur. Both these facts should motivate airline policy and pilots to be sensible most of the time. That said, people sometimes will pretend they know what to do when they don't, if only to maintain their pride. I am also reassured by some corners of the press loving to run an aviation safety story, even if trivial, superficial and factually incorrect - keeps airlines on their toes
I am also aware that there seems to be a tendency within the industry to close ranks when something happens and try to resolve problems without too much getting out to the press - it took a huge public argument before the EU agreed to publish an "airlines banned from the EU" list. I don't expect any kind of transparency in the next few years along the lines of forcing airlines to formally disclose any kind of meaningful policy beyond a trivial (and not always correct) 'safety is our number 1 priority'
Last edited by davidjohnson6; 6th Apr 2010 at 01:26.
Uncomfortable
Well, I don't 'vet' the crew on boarding! Like the rest of the operation I take things on trust generally. I always assumed that the reason for having two crew was to balance workload and provide backup in the event of an issue. The move to two man flight decks must also have been backed by analysis on sufficiency. However, I would think all these arguments assume a reasonable balance in experience/capability between the two seats. So persistent use of low hours FO's must weaken one link in the safety chain.
I have seen the petition on another thread. If there are indeed experience people out of work, what motivates the pay to fly candidates as the economics wouldn't seem promising ?
The general public (including me) are easily unsettled by any publicity on flight safety as we would generally prefer not to think about it. Not sure how you could go about promulgating this issue without risking a shouting match. Why isn't the union doing something (a. to protect its member's interests, b. for safety ) ? Even the RMT is using 'safety' as a red flag wrt railway maintenance which is a much less emotive issue.
I have seen the petition on another thread. If there are indeed experience people out of work, what motivates the pay to fly candidates as the economics wouldn't seem promising ?
The general public (including me) are easily unsettled by any publicity on flight safety as we would generally prefer not to think about it. Not sure how you could go about promulgating this issue without risking a shouting match. Why isn't the union doing something (a. to protect its member's interests, b. for safety ) ? Even the RMT is using 'safety' as a red flag wrt railway maintenance which is a much less emotive issue.
Personally, I rely upon the Aviation Regulatory Authority of the country of register of the aircraft and airline to ensure than safe minimum standards apply.
Therefore, if I trust that regulatory authority, I trust the airline. The flight crew's remuneration (or lack of) is not in my view relevant to safety (though of course most would sympathise with their plight in the example quoted on a human level)
I'm sure however, that the Media would be only too delighted to publish a suitably inaccurate scare story.
Therefore, if I trust that regulatory authority, I trust the airline. The flight crew's remuneration (or lack of) is not in my view relevant to safety (though of course most would sympathise with their plight in the example quoted on a human level)
I'm sure however, that the Media would be only too delighted to publish a suitably inaccurate scare story.
Last edited by Mariner9; 6th Apr 2010 at 11:38.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: MAN
Age: 55
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GW et al...
Are you asking about
a) Pay to fly
or
b) Low hours pilots?
The BA and Britannia cadet schemes did this in the past
Lufthansa has the Bremen flight school, FlyBe use a UK FTO.
I'm sure there are more...
The training syllabus is set for the ATPL course, I personally can't
see the difference between P2F and a ATPL Cadet starting.
Now, the ethical issue of offering x hrs (and taking money for it)
then on to the next low hours qualified pilot, may be dubious. However
the current economic climate is what it is and it's really Caveat Emptor
for anyone entering the profession.
So to answer your question, no I'm not worried given that the syllabus
is the same and it's not a shortcut to the cockpit. Reported incident rates
due to low hours pilots are not statistically variant. However, the ethical /
moral position is down to the individual.*
Personally I'd be more concerned by widespread adoption of the Multi crew
certification (the name eludes me at the moment), where the actual
training is cut down.
Regards
DaveA
* Accidents / incidents statistically are more likely to happen sometime after finishing training.
From teaching various types of diving I know that accidents tend to
happen at th 60-90 dive mark for open water and then for qualified Cave divers at the 40-50 mark.
I believe there is a similar hours zone for PPL holders, although I can't find a cite
a) Pay to fly
or
b) Low hours pilots?
The BA and Britannia cadet schemes did this in the past
Lufthansa has the Bremen flight school, FlyBe use a UK FTO.
I'm sure there are more...
The training syllabus is set for the ATPL course, I personally can't
see the difference between P2F and a ATPL Cadet starting.
Now, the ethical issue of offering x hrs (and taking money for it)
then on to the next low hours qualified pilot, may be dubious. However
the current economic climate is what it is and it's really Caveat Emptor
for anyone entering the profession.
So to answer your question, no I'm not worried given that the syllabus
is the same and it's not a shortcut to the cockpit. Reported incident rates
due to low hours pilots are not statistically variant. However, the ethical /
moral position is down to the individual.*
Personally I'd be more concerned by widespread adoption of the Multi crew
certification (the name eludes me at the moment), where the actual
training is cut down.
Regards
DaveA
* Accidents / incidents statistically are more likely to happen sometime after finishing training.
From teaching various types of diving I know that accidents tend to
happen at th 60-90 dive mark for open water and then for qualified Cave divers at the 40-50 mark.
I believe there is a similar hours zone for PPL holders, although I can't find a cite
Last edited by Diver_Dave; 6th Apr 2010 at 12:23. Reason: Typo's galore........
Paxing All Over The World
Global Warrior
Why can't you load the question?
For whom are you asking the question?
Are you a journalist?
Are you in the airline industry?
Your PPRuNe public profile gives no detail and you have 'low hours' here, so given that these are anonymous forums, your question seems to be loaded ... I ask not in an aggressive manner and will cheerfully give my answer - but I am interested in your motivation.
i cant load the question. I have asked it. Within the context of the original question, my input cannot be any more than the question i have asked. Im just interested to hear from passengers as to what they they think about people paying to fly airliners as opposed to be being paid to fly them.
Regards
GW
Regards
GW
For whom are you asking the question?
Are you a journalist?
Are you in the airline industry?
Your PPRuNe public profile gives no detail and you have 'low hours' here, so given that these are anonymous forums, your question seems to be loaded ... I ask not in an aggressive manner and will cheerfully give my answer - but I am interested in your motivation.
Paxing All Over The World
Thanks GW for that update and the PM (replied). Of course, you might be bluffing (Sry could not resist 
) but here is my reply:
Where I am aware of low hours crew that are paying their way - I do not travel on that carrier. I think that it's a dangerous path and, as I have said in other threads, the whole airline biz has reached a comfortable plateau of safety - so that the next move can only be down.
It is human nature to improve things and then get complacent, EVERY company and govt and most individuals get to this point. The saftey record will go down in any number of ways but they ALL lead back to money.
I could add to the thread about the benefits of being part of the forum - that I now know more about carriers that have poor practice.
) but here is my reply:Where I am aware of low hours crew that are paying their way - I do not travel on that carrier. I think that it's a dangerous path and, as I have said in other threads, the whole airline biz has reached a comfortable plateau of safety - so that the next move can only be down.
It is human nature to improve things and then get complacent, EVERY company and govt and most individuals get to this point. The saftey record will go down in any number of ways but they ALL lead back to money.
- Scrimping on training
- Cutting back on flight crew numbers
- Making all crew work longer hours
- Have computers take control of too much planning and not enough seat-of-the-pants
- Ignore how much weight is carried on and put in the overheads that will rain down on pax
- Assume that, since it went right the last 1000 times, it will go right this time (The Normalization of Deviance, I think it is called, just remember the Space Shuttle)
- Allow drunk pax on board, keep folks cooped up/strapped in so that tempers flare
- The list is endless
I could add to the thread about the benefits of being part of the forum - that I now know more about carriers that have poor practice.
Guest
Posts: n/a
GW
My tuppence.
Seems to me that there are two sides to the argument (a) you need two highly trained and experienced pilots, vs (b) modern aircraft are easier to fly and therefore you only really need one.
I am only a PPL, so I cannot really make a judgement on this statement, due to lack of experience.
However, looking at a leading proponent of the (b) argument and taking into account his company's 'contribution' to the sector, I instinctively feel that (a) is the way I wish to travel.
Therefore, I tend to fly legacy carriers and pay more for my tickets.
Unfortunately, the majority of pax are fare whores, which is how we got to where we got to where we are.
My tuppence.
Seems to me that there are two sides to the argument (a) you need two highly trained and experienced pilots, vs (b) modern aircraft are easier to fly and therefore you only really need one.
I am only a PPL, so I cannot really make a judgement on this statement, due to lack of experience.
However, looking at a leading proponent of the (b) argument and taking into account his company's 'contribution' to the sector, I instinctively feel that (a) is the way I wish to travel.
Therefore, I tend to fly legacy carriers and pay more for my tickets.
Unfortunately, the majority of pax are fare whores, which is how we got to where we got to where we are.
"System"
As a customer - and the term SLF is just an indicator of the inward-looking nature of Aviation - I have never been given the opportunity to interview the folk in the pointy end to see whether or not they are up to the job of transporting me and mine.
In the UK I'm told that some schoolkids in some schools can be on the interview panel when teachers are appointed. Wierd, Huh!
So given that I can't do the interviewing, and that the other customers can't either, there must be some sort of underlying trust that says that "the system" makes sure that the pilots are up to the job.
Most pilots are not suicidal, and have the same interest in safety that I have - so I gues that's a good starting point. (Remember the old lady who took a firm grip on the dentists privates, and said "We aren't going to hurt each other, are we?)
Assuming a lack of suicidal drive by the pilots, and an airline that understands the costs of an accident, then the next part of the "system" must be the Inspectors. The FOIs are (in most countries) experienced pilots.
I guess that if they say it is OK to carry on as we are, then it must be OK.
If lots of pilots think that this is not OK - and that their concerns are about safety, not money, then they ought to lobby DfT/CAA/FAA et al to get the Standards and the System changed.
In the UK I'm told that some schoolkids in some schools can be on the interview panel when teachers are appointed. Wierd, Huh!
So given that I can't do the interviewing, and that the other customers can't either, there must be some sort of underlying trust that says that "the system" makes sure that the pilots are up to the job.
Most pilots are not suicidal, and have the same interest in safety that I have - so I gues that's a good starting point. (Remember the old lady who took a firm grip on the dentists privates, and said "We aren't going to hurt each other, are we?)
Assuming a lack of suicidal drive by the pilots, and an airline that understands the costs of an accident, then the next part of the "system" must be the Inspectors. The FOIs are (in most countries) experienced pilots.
I guess that if they say it is OK to carry on as we are, then it must be OK.
If lots of pilots think that this is not OK - and that their concerns are about safety, not money, then they ought to lobby DfT/CAA/FAA et al to get the Standards and the System changed.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Experience in times of trouble
I have been in airlines and travel most of my life. Personally, I ALWAYS put confidence in a carrier ahead of the ticket price. The industry has a great safety record, and modern aircraft are very reliable, but this could lead to complacency. Yes, you can get away with pay-to-fly juniors for a long time, but what happens when there is a real challenge to their (limited) skills? On T/O and approach, where most accidents occur, there is little time to identify a problem and correct it. Two experienced pilots offers me more hope than a pay-to-fly junior and a highly stressed Captain trying to do both their jobs. The old adage "two heads are better than one" translates into two sets of experience are more likely to find the answer.
Most people see flying as so routine they do not even think about safety issues. They just look at the price. What future cuts will be made by the cheapest carrier to stay cheapest? I only hope it will not take something serious to wake people up to the dangers of this slippery slope.
Most people see flying as so routine they do not even think about safety issues. They just look at the price. What future cuts will be made by the cheapest carrier to stay cheapest? I only hope it will not take something serious to wake people up to the dangers of this slippery slope.
Paxing All Over The World
Here's an interesting item from the US, not about the aviation biz - but I suggest entirely germane to the problem.
In a coal mine, 25 men have just died. There were plenty of regulations but:-
The operator behind the Sago mine had been widely criticised after it became known the company had been cited for more than 200 safety violations during the 12 months prior to the accident.
So the regulator KNEW about the violations but did not shut them down? It's great to have regulators who know about the violations and write memos - but if they do not have the controls or, possibly, the b@lls to shut the operation down? People die. What confidence do we have that the various aviation authorities have the powers and WILL act?
BBC News - US mine safety under the spotlight
In a coal mine, 25 men have just died. There were plenty of regulations but:-
The operator behind the Sago mine had been widely criticised after it became known the company had been cited for more than 200 safety violations during the 12 months prior to the accident.
So the regulator KNEW about the violations but did not shut them down? It's great to have regulators who know about the violations and write memos - but if they do not have the controls or, possibly, the b@lls to shut the operation down? People die. What confidence do we have that the various aviation authorities have the powers and WILL act?
BBC News - US mine safety under the spotlight
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Over the hill and far away
Age: 76
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It concerns me that these pilots have to pay to get their type-rating.
It concerns me that there are so many experienced pilots on the furlough list, or who have left the industry altogether.
It concerns me that there are so many flight-schools taking money from students and churning -out pilots in to an already saturated marketplace - but then, the same can be said of universities (mostly the ex-Poly's) who are doing the exact same thing in all other fields.
It does not concern me that a low-time First Officer may be sat in the right-hand seat of an aircraft I may be travelling in. Why not?
The FO has proven him or herself to be proficient in the eyes of the local civil aviation authority at many levels - PPL, IFR, Multi-Engine, Commercial and fATPL. You can't buy these certificates, you can only buy the training that will enable you to pass the examinations.
He or she has proven to the airline, in the pre-hire simulator check ride, that they are capable of flying the aircraft to company SOPs.
I don't even think about the experience of either pilot when I board an aircraft.
(NOTE: I am not, and never have been, a pilot, though I do work in the aviation industry)
It concerns me that there are so many experienced pilots on the furlough list, or who have left the industry altogether.
It concerns me that there are so many flight-schools taking money from students and churning -out pilots in to an already saturated marketplace - but then, the same can be said of universities (mostly the ex-Poly's) who are doing the exact same thing in all other fields.
It does not concern me that a low-time First Officer may be sat in the right-hand seat of an aircraft I may be travelling in. Why not?
The FO has proven him or herself to be proficient in the eyes of the local civil aviation authority at many levels - PPL, IFR, Multi-Engine, Commercial and fATPL. You can't buy these certificates, you can only buy the training that will enable you to pass the examinations.
He or she has proven to the airline, in the pre-hire simulator check ride, that they are capable of flying the aircraft to company SOPs.
I don't even think about the experience of either pilot when I board an aircraft.
(NOTE: I am not, and never have been, a pilot, though I do work in the aviation industry)