Side step "private flying" entirely?

[Pilot DAR]

This article JetBlue Eyes Flying-Time Rules With New Pilot-Training Program - WSJ points to the continuation of a trend I am aware of, which seeks to reduce or eliminate the first stage of a pilot's learning.

I opine that a large amount of the magic "1500 hours" flying experience to start airline flying is more about incremental training and skills advancement, with a large dose of solo flying, during which it's all up to you!

Good resource thinking can be taught or it can be learned. Sim training is great, and yes, many failures and combinations can be introduced which are simply dangerous to train in flight, but some of the things a pilot learns by simply being privately scared, may never be learned. Good decision making comes from those "I learned from that" moments.

I am empathetic to the airlines struggle to attract well experienced candidate pilots with the low wages needed to compete with low airfares. That is the public's fault - always looking for the super deal on the airfare, and perhaps not being willing to actually pay the real cost of crewing the flight.

In the mean time, new plans will creep in, to provide pilots with a differing history of training to crew these "competitive" flights. I wonder if the flying public will begin to worry when they realize that the low cost flight they're on, is being flown by two pilots, neither of whom have ever flown a plane alone, never secretly got away with the stupid thing, so they learned not to do that again, and never actually averted a real stall with real control inputs.

By allowing this alternate path to the pointy end, the public will be eroding private flying terribly, and losing the valuable tribal knowledge which is produced from, and circulates within this realm.

[rifruffian]

but you need to be born lucky.....

hullo OP and I empathise with the nature of your post. You do refer to the things that pilots will learn from being privately scared; and as a result of my own training and experience process many years ago I would agree with that......if you survive to tell the tale. I suggest that to survive this training path you must be born lucky.
I suggest that because I am aware of bad dangerous situations I myself came through during that phase of my flying life. But also I have read accident reports where pilots have committed these same mistakes with fatal result.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

AF477 and Buffalo point to pilots being up front who lack the most basic of stick & rudder skills. Aeroplane operators in fact, not pilots. The industry should be moving to a pilot training schedule which puts that right, not one that reduces basic skills still further!

[Bare Plane]

it's the public's fault ???

That is the public's fault - always looking for the super deal on the airfare, and perhaps not being willing to actually pay the real cost of crewing the flight.

That's an interesting thought. Kind of like blaming the shoppers for going to Walmart instead of shopping at the local expensive inner city store. I think it is called capitalism.

The public doesn't set the fare prices. The competing airlines do.

Really, why should I pay a Lufthansa price when I can pay a RyanAir price? There would have to be a lot bigger difference in the quality of the service.

[9 lives]

There would have to be a lot bigger difference in the quality of the service.

My choice is the quality of the service which I cannot see - the quality of the maintenance, and the experience of the flight crews, for two...

At the more expensive inner city store I often find really knowledgeable staff, which may be what I really need to make the most cost effective purchase, or best use of my shopping time. I find Walmart to be hit and miss with staff experience relative to the service being provided.

By extension, lesser experience and "hit and miss" service would not be my preference for airline travel!

[The Old Fat One]

That is the public's fault - always looking for the super deal on the airfare, and perhaps not being willing to actually pay the real cost of crewing the flight.

Nope...that's a failure of capitalism as posted above. Legislation should have prevented this, just as it should have prevented the worst excesses of the finance industry.

That's a lesson we (humanity) have yet to learn and probably never will. But don't obfuscate it, by pointing the finger at Joe Public, so as absolving aviation.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Legislation should have prevented this

That's a very nanny-state point of view.

Real capitalists would want the regulation removed, so that the public could have a free market choice between expensive safe airlines and cheap dangerous ones.

[TheOddOne]

...except that the 'cheap' ones aren't any more (or less) dangerous than the 'expensive' ones. I would contend that Ryanair's no more dangerous to fly with than Lufthansa, or BA, just less comfortable. Most people are prepared to trade discomfort for a really cheap airfare over a less than 2 hour sector. I think the Ts and Cs for Ryanair are sufficiently competitive for them to be able to pick the flight deck crews they want (can't speak for the cabin crew!)

Yes, I realise that it's perceived that it's legislation that makes all the airlines 'toe the line' on safety.

TOO

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Simulators are great.

But they do not give the same " feel " and other senses that flying a real airplane does.

So in effect you get a simulated monkey instead of a real pilot.

[abgd]

Real capitalists would want the regulation removed, so that the public could have a free market choice between expensive safe airlines and cheap dangerous ones.

Except that being realistic, there's no way for an average member of the public to determine whether an airline - particularly a small one - is operating reasonably safely or not. Even for the larger carriers, I don't think you could get a statistically valid indication as to whether BA is safer than Air France based on hull losses alone.

Headline accidents are rare enough to make it impossible for anyone with an appreciation of statistics to use them as a guide. And as the only clue accessible to the passenger regarding the quality of the engine maintenance, is the state of the soft furnishings in the cabin, which will be prioritised by management in the absence of regulation?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Except that being realistic, there's no way for an average member of the public to determine whether an airline - particularly a small one - is operating reasonably safely or not.

Ah! - well, in this perfect free market world, if you felt you needed nannying you could buy that service in, ie hire a consultant to help you decide (eg, buy an airline safety report from Which?).

You might then ask how to avoid the cowboys and sharks amongst the consultants ... but this would only be a mirror of how financial services work in the UK, where you hire an IFA to warn you about which are the crooked banks, but you don't have any way to spot crooked IRAs.

[abgd]

The best argument against regulation is that flying is safe enough that a drop in standards would be acceptable. To be frank I don't worry about the poor record of Indonesian carriers because I know they're still far safer than the ferries.

But you know that the average man on the street isn't going to buy a copy of Which before buying a budget airline ticket. Particularly if there is only one company flying the route he wants. And will the company subdivide its published accounts into 'cosmetic' and 'substantive' maintenance so that 'Which' can make a more informed decision than him anyway?

Car manufacturers provide lots of good case studies of public pressure failing to ensure minimal safety standards, particularly for pedestrians.

In the absence of regulation the only people enforcing minimum standards might be insurance companies.

[Sillert,V.I.]

If we are going to put folks into the RHS of a B738/A320 with 250hrs TT, then I'd say there's a valid argument for making all of that time as relevant as possible.

That's not to say I agree with this practice - that's a discussion for a different thread - but as that's the reality here in EASA land, there's a case for providing training which reflects that. If the Captain did become incapacitated, being able to safely handle an airliner in otherwise normal ops will be more useful than being competent in dealing with an emergency in an SEP.

I'd actually be more concerned about low time pilots flying P2 in a small regional turboprop such as a metroliner.

[9 lives]

If the Captain did become incapacitated, being able to safely handle an airliner in otherwise normal ops will be more useful than being competent in dealing with an emergency in an SEP.

What if the Captain too had come through the "never flew solo" training path, though was just further along. You now have two pilots who have likely never had to actually make a life and death decision for themselves - by themselves while flying. 'Never dealt with a real emergency.

These are pilots who have never had the sphincter factor in their flying. They may be book smart, and sim savvy, but I feel there's still the "this is the real world and you have to handle it" element missing from their experience.

I think I would be more comfortable with the average 1,500 hour Cherokee and Seneca pilot being dropped into right seat of the stricken 737 to land it, rather than the never flown solo 1,500 sim pilot. The "real" pilot will have learned the skills of staying cool during a real emergency, and prioritizing what needs to happen to simply get down safely.

[fireflybob]

These are pilots who have never had the sphincter factor in their flying.

Step Turn, I am with you on this one.

Real flying on basic aircraft teaches one "survival" - I would include flight instruction in this.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Have you ever worked with folk who can't make a decision? They faff about "maybe this, maybe that", they can't prioritise, can't see the big picture, get overwhelmed by the detail? Can't see what MUST BE DONE RIGHT NOW and what can wait?

I always think these folk should go learn to fly a small aerobatic taildragger out of a farm strip. Nothing else sharpens the mind like being solely responsible for preparation, field state, go/no-go and wx decisions, W&B, fuelling, fitness for flight decisons (you and the aeroplane), and the myriad other stuff you have to deal with in real time as sole operator, especially if it starts to go pear shaped.

To me it's inconceivable that anyone who hasn't done all that, and quite a lot of it, should go anywhere near an airliner flight deck - either seat!

[Armchairflyer]

I always think these folk should go learn to fly a small aerobatic taildragger out of a farm strip. Nothing else sharpens the mind like being solely responsible for preparation, field state, go/no-go and wx decisions, W&B, fuelling, fitness for flight decisons (you and the aeroplane), and the myriad other stuff you have to deal with in real time as sole operator, especially if it starts to go pear shaped.

Completely agree with the "Nothing else sharpens ..." part, but I don't quite see the connection to the placement of the auxiliary gear and permitted g-loads and maneuvers.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

It's all to do with building feel for the aeroplane, Armchair.

Taildraggers don't land themselves, and competency at aerobatics teaches you what makes an aeroplane fly, and why it sometimes stops flying, and sensitivity through hands, feet, and eyes to it being about to depart through constantly provoking such departures deliberately, in the way that driving a PA28 straight and level never will.

Oh, and recovery from unusual attitudes; if you can recover instinctively from a botched stall turn in a Yak52 that's on its back spinning (as they tend to if you let them) managing not to stall an airliner from 38,000' all the way down to the sea would be a piece of pi55.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Completely agree with the "Nothing else sharpens ..." part, but I don't quite see the connection to the placement of the auxiliary gear and permitted g-loads and maneuvers.

Agree.

It's being on your own, and not in a simulator with a "reset" button, that makes you think, as your wheels leave the ground, "the only way I'm going to be alive in an hour's time is if I don't screw up". Not every flight, but sometimes (and I don't say it out loud to passengers). And that's a spamcan on 2km of tarmac.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Not much judgement on field conditions needed operating off 2km of tarmac!

Surface... err, hard.
Available length.... more than you'll ever need
Trees on the climbout.... hardly!
Power lines crossing short final... don't think so
Curved or weaving approach required due trees, houses etc.... Nope.

Etc.

All tools in the experienced airman's tool box. Bet Sully's toolbox was brimming.