JAA proposal to make ATPL training and testing easier?
Thread Starter
JAA proposal to make ATPL training and testing easier?
In Balpas annual report they say they strongly oppose a new method of licensing airline cadets currently proposed by the JAA.
They do this because, in their view, the proposed requirements for training and testing are inadequate.
Does anyone know anything about the proposed JAA changes that Balpa are opposing?
Sounds like the JAA wants to water down the standards and BALPA don't want them to...
Anyone?
WWW
They do this because, in their view, the proposed requirements for training and testing are inadequate.
Does anyone know anything about the proposed JAA changes that Balpa are opposing?
Sounds like the JAA wants to water down the standards and BALPA don't want them to...
Anyone?
WWW
Chieftan o'the Pudden Race
Join Date: Nov 1997
Location: Scotland usually, and often other parts of Europe
Age: 55
Posts: 826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember there were proposals to have a "zero flight time" CPL. This would basically consist of ground exams followed by Level D (?) simulator training for a specific type of transport aircraft. This would mean having a company & type specific instrument rating, sort of squeezing everything into one (Type rating, instument rating and MCC all based on one a/c type and set of company SOPs). There would be no flight training on SEP or MEP aircraft types.
If I remember rightly this proposal was floated a couple of years ago and was being backed by airlines as it would provide them with type specfic pilots "out of the box". I thought those proposals had died a quiet death though, as at the time the various unions (IFALPA and BALPA are the ones that stick in my mind) had vigorously opposed it.
More f
ing goalpost shifting 
If I remember rightly this proposal was floated a couple of years ago and was being backed by airlines as it would provide them with type specfic pilots "out of the box". I thought those proposals had died a quiet death though, as at the time the various unions (IFALPA and BALPA are the ones that stick in my mind) had vigorously opposed it.
More f
ing goalpost shifting
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't there some discussion about andailine only license.
From what i remember of the article.
Students would go solo in a SEP and thats about it.
After that they would go straight into a Jet Sim for 300 hours of multi-crew IR training, this would also do for Type rating as well.
Then the OPC at the end would give them CPL multi crew IR and type rating.
They would have maximum 10 PIC under there belts and no pratical VFR nav. And no real RT experence. Or real life cock ups.
All of which apart from the SEP work and ATPL exams could be done with in house TRTO.
The airlines are pushing for this apparently.
Doesn't sound half as much fun as doing it the modular way. I bet the line trainers can't wait to get the first batch online.
MJ
From what i remember of the article.
Students would go solo in a SEP and thats about it.
After that they would go straight into a Jet Sim for 300 hours of multi-crew IR training, this would also do for Type rating as well.
Then the OPC at the end would give them CPL multi crew IR and type rating.
They would have maximum 10 PIC under there belts and no pratical VFR nav. And no real RT experence. Or real life cock ups.
All of which apart from the SEP work and ATPL exams could be done with in house TRTO.
The airlines are pushing for this apparently.
Doesn't sound half as much fun as doing it the modular way. I bet the line trainers can't wait to get the first batch online.
MJ
Thread Starter
300hrs in a jet sim with a sim trainer?!? Thats not going to be cheap!
One wonders what was/is so wrong with how its always been done..?
Cheers
WWW
One wonders what was/is so wrong with how its always been done..?
Cheers
WWW
Because Nigel Airways, who have heavens knows how many full Flight Simulators up at Branecrank, could clean up quite nicely 'marketing' a 'product' for other airlines - and they wouldn't have to go to the expense of training any real pilots, just simulator drivers. So they are quite keen on this barking idea.
Personally I think that a proper aptitude and selection process, followed by the current VFR CPL is the absolute minimum non-synthetic flight training which should ever be allowed. But perhaps conducting all the IR and multi-engine training in an appropriate jet FNPT and/or FS might have more relevance than the current farce of struggling to keep a Sennapod flying on one labouring engine following a SEFATO in pretend IMC!
But leave it as it is - and make the airlines pay to train their own pilots would be my preference
Personally I think that a proper aptitude and selection process, followed by the current VFR CPL is the absolute minimum non-synthetic flight training which should ever be allowed. But perhaps conducting all the IR and multi-engine training in an appropriate jet FNPT and/or FS might have more relevance than the current farce of struggling to keep a Sennapod flying on one labouring engine following a SEFATO in pretend IMC!
But leave it as it is - and make the airlines pay to train their own pilots would be my preference
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what implications does this have for anyone starting the modular route (as I am next month!!!)? Will there be a "cut-off point" when regular CPL/IR's will be unacceptable for a first officer job? Should I hold on until the situation is clear, or just go for it & hope for the best?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The Land Downunder
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is exactly right, ICAO and JAA have proposed the introduction of a new licence sometime in late 2004 called a 'Multicrew Licence'. Trainees would never have to go solo, training would be conducted intially in SEP for the first 10 hours or so, they would then move straight to MEP aircraft in a multi-crew environment with a heavy simulator syllabus to be issued with a multicrew licence at the normal 200 hour mark. From there they would add a type rating onto the licence and hey presto be employable with an airline. They could do this without ever holding a licence that allows them to fly solo in ANY capacity.
It is being introduced to provide for the projected shortfall in the future of pilots and some brainbox at ICAO doesn't see the need to put people through the traditional route of flying training, in theory it will allow someone to train straight to airline standards at a fraction of the cost that it currently takes, as most of the training can be in ground based sims.
Will be interesting to see how it pans out. Kinda sucks for those of us that struggled for years through all of the hoops that the JAA/CAA kept presenting, but hey thems the breaks.
It is being introduced to provide for the projected shortfall in the future of pilots and some brainbox at ICAO doesn't see the need to put people through the traditional route of flying training, in theory it will allow someone to train straight to airline standards at a fraction of the cost that it currently takes, as most of the training can be in ground based sims.
Will be interesting to see how it pans out. Kinda sucks for those of us that struggled for years through all of the hoops that the JAA/CAA kept presenting, but hey thems the breaks.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oz
Age: 75
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
given that few (if any) airlines can fulfil their requirements through cadet training now, and given that they are not going to radically change their entry standards the introduction of any change to training such as a straight through airline pilot licence is not going to make any great difference to the prospects of anyone now or in the foreseeable future.
note this topic was being addressed quitre recently on one of the D & G Forums.
note this topic was being addressed quitre recently on one of the D & G Forums.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question of the day:
Whats the difference between a 200 hours Frozen ATPL Cadet and a zero hour one?
Dont see much difference...turning a knob left or right or up and down doesnt require 200 hours..does it?
Safe tuning
M.85
Whats the difference between a 200 hours Frozen ATPL Cadet and a zero hour one?
Dont see much difference...turning a knob left or right or up and down doesnt require 200 hours..does it?
Safe tuning
M.85
Thread Starter
It'll end in disaster.
You *have* to have had the experience of making your own go no-go decisions and getting it wrong and scaring yourself and Learning About Flying From That.
You simply have to.
I know from my time teaching airline cadets that they exist totally in a world that is heavily cossetted by the Flying Order Book, their Instructor, the Duty Instructor etc etc. They already have far too little exposure to making finely balanced decisions.
Not everything is in the books, found in a checklist or covered by SOP.
You've got to kick people out there at some point in their training - let them be Skipper and send them with aircraft into the blue yonder.
Lets face it the Military - every countries military - do it that way as their primary focus is on quality not cost. I think this proposal is rooted in cost and us such deserves contempt.
This should not stand.
Cheers
WWW
You *have* to have had the experience of making your own go no-go decisions and getting it wrong and scaring yourself and Learning About Flying From That.
You simply have to.
I know from my time teaching airline cadets that they exist totally in a world that is heavily cossetted by the Flying Order Book, their Instructor, the Duty Instructor etc etc. They already have far too little exposure to making finely balanced decisions.
Not everything is in the books, found in a checklist or covered by SOP.
You've got to kick people out there at some point in their training - let them be Skipper and send them with aircraft into the blue yonder.
Lets face it the Military - every countries military - do it that way as their primary focus is on quality not cost. I think this proposal is rooted in cost and us such deserves contempt.
This should not stand.
Cheers
WWW
Guest
Posts: n/a
On the face of it this makes complete sense for those wishing to take the integrated route and whose wish is only to progress to the airlines. I don't really see why the products of the scheme would be low quality. Any body ever read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintencance"...subject meets object...with this the employer gets no more and no less than they need for junior F/Os.
Essentially, it strikes me that this kind of training would be horrifically expensive for fully self funded students and extremely cost effective to the larger airline (the guys pushing for this?) for sponsored/part-sponsored students. Therefore I would imagine that the products of that training would expect to be only employed by airlines (and the accompanying salaries) or the sponsorer controls their career from that point on (for a few years at least).
In my mind that still leaves a gaping hole for the small jet carrier market, TP market, corporate and other no less essential commercial pilots ops. These 'small' operators are probably not in a position to fund or adequately renumerate junior F/Os who have come through this process. The modular route will still be essential and the larger airlines will still value real experience so long as somebody else has paid for it.
To summarise, this seems to be a modification of the integrated route. Anybody using this route would expect good pay from the off. They will be trading that for fewer career options down the road.
Essentially, it strikes me that this kind of training would be horrifically expensive for fully self funded students and extremely cost effective to the larger airline (the guys pushing for this?) for sponsored/part-sponsored students. Therefore I would imagine that the products of that training would expect to be only employed by airlines (and the accompanying salaries) or the sponsorer controls their career from that point on (for a few years at least).
In my mind that still leaves a gaping hole for the small jet carrier market, TP market, corporate and other no less essential commercial pilots ops. These 'small' operators are probably not in a position to fund or adequately renumerate junior F/Os who have come through this process. The modular route will still be essential and the larger airlines will still value real experience so long as somebody else has paid for it.
To summarise, this seems to be a modification of the integrated route. Anybody using this route would expect good pay from the off. They will be trading that for fewer career options down the road.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: sector 001
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dare say it would be possible to train someone where simulators formed the majority of the practical training. Fully trained to jump through the JAR hoops.
Without the normal exposure to the conventional flying training whereby the osmosis is allowed to work, and real decisions made when flying solo, the quality of pilot will be much lower at the licence issue stage. Additional training will be necessary to bridge the gap.
Does AIRMANSHIP skills count for nothing?
Without the normal exposure to the conventional flying training whereby the osmosis is allowed to work, and real decisions made when flying solo, the quality of pilot will be much lower at the licence issue stage. Additional training will be necessary to bridge the gap.
Does AIRMANSHIP skills count for nothing?
Guest
Posts: n/a
ecj,
I really don't know, but I am hypothesising. I think the license is merely a license to be an F/O and nothing else. Therefore, I guess, the idea is that you learn on the job. Decision making skills and airmanship will be rigorously drilled according to the company's standards, not the Acme School of Flying’s standards.
I really don't know, but I am hypothesising. I think the license is merely a license to be an F/O and nothing else. Therefore, I guess, the idea is that you learn on the job. Decision making skills and airmanship will be rigorously drilled according to the company's standards, not the Acme School of Flying’s standards.
And how many airline captains will have sufficient instructional qualifications to deal with these mere machine-minders? How many airlines will accept standards based on lowest possible cost?
Having seen the difference between 'old time' ab-initio RAF pilots who had the benefit of a Jet Provost or Tucano course before ME training and the new breed who have only around 20, yes, that's twenty hours of P1C time (all on fixed-undercarriage light aeroplanes!) before they start their 4-jet OCU, I can certainly vouch that the airline's TRIs will have their work cut out if this hair-brained scheme should ever see the light of day.
The airline bean counters will witter about the 'new' type of pilot who doesn't need the traditional stick-and-rudder skills of his/her forefather, "..after all, an Airbus just flies itself ", but that's all rubbish. All they want to do is to maximise their profits and avoid having to pay for proper pilot training. Time they woke up to the fact that you can't have an omelette without buying, breaking and cooking the eggs first!
Having seen the difference between 'old time' ab-initio RAF pilots who had the benefit of a Jet Provost or Tucano course before ME training and the new breed who have only around 20, yes, that's twenty hours of P1C time (all on fixed-undercarriage light aeroplanes!) before they start their 4-jet OCU, I can certainly vouch that the airline's TRIs will have their work cut out if this hair-brained scheme should ever see the light of day.
The airline bean counters will witter about the 'new' type of pilot who doesn't need the traditional stick-and-rudder skills of his/her forefather, "..after all, an Airbus just flies itself
", but that's all rubbish. All they want to do is to maximise their profits and avoid having to pay for proper pilot training. Time they woke up to the fact that you can't have an omelette without buying, breaking and cooking the eggs first!
Chieftan o'the Pudden Race
Join Date: Nov 1997
Location: Scotland usually, and often other parts of Europe
Age: 55
Posts: 826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Theoretically it is possible under the current rules to do something similar (assuming I have read and understood the JAR-FCL correctly).
Following a modular route:
With this route you could potentially emerge as a 737/Airbus F/O with a type specific IR and approx 200hours.
Dunno if anyone has tried this route and if it has been succesful.
Maybe I should copyright the idea....
Following a modular route:
- PPL
- Hour building
- ATPL Ground exams
- SEP CPL
- SEP ICAO recognised IR
- Pitch up to a 737/Airbus TRTO. Get type rated on said jet.
With this route you could potentially emerge as a 737/Airbus F/O with a type specific IR and approx 200hours.
Dunno if anyone has tried this route and if it has been succesful.
Maybe I should copyright the idea....
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I think it's a great idea!
Currently, a lot of GA or smaller transport jobs (instructing, turbo-props, etc) are done by fATPL holders who are hour-building before they move to the airlines. Presumably, anyone following this path would not be qualified to do this type of job. Therefore, there will be far fewer people available to do the work. And so those of us who would prefer this type of work to ferrying 100 people between London and Glasgow 4 times a day might actually be able to get a reasonable salary!
Ok, fair enough - that's a slightly selfish opinion which takes no account of the reality of the situation. It's actually a crap idea. But I am surprised that no one, so far, has asked where the next generation of PPL instructors and turbo-prop pilots is going to come from.....
FFF
---------------
Currently, a lot of GA or smaller transport jobs (instructing, turbo-props, etc) are done by fATPL holders who are hour-building before they move to the airlines. Presumably, anyone following this path would not be qualified to do this type of job. Therefore, there will be far fewer people available to do the work. And so those of us who would prefer this type of work to ferrying 100 people between London and Glasgow 4 times a day might actually be able to get a reasonable salary!
Ok, fair enough - that's a slightly selfish opinion which takes no account of the reality of the situation. It's actually a crap idea. But I am surprised that no one, so far, has asked where the next generation of PPL instructors and turbo-prop pilots is going to come from.....
FFF
---------------
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost Reduction/Technology drivers
It was stated a number of years ago by a high ranking training
captain at BA that he could train a youngster to fly a 737 without
some of this GA stuff.
One supposes that there is a drive to reduce cost and £6.00 per minute in a GA twin that has technology that is obsolete in twin engined modern airliners is now just seen as too expensive.
Simulators are getting cheaper but GA flying is getting more and more expensive and the GA stock is now ancient......
The introduction of the multi-crew IR rating has already severed the link between GA and airline-IR work. Airline captains can no longer use their IR to fly a Seneca IFR withot undergoing a separate renewal.
Its also apparant that the skill knowledge and experience required to fly a twin on a public transport flight single crew
is a little different that flying a multi-crew modern glass cockpit airbus multi crew.
Will we all get refunds from the CAA?
See Page 17 re Flypuppy ICAO IR
http://aviation.fh-joanneum.at/JAR/Vortr%E4ge/Woods.pdf
www.halldalemedia.co.uk/eats2003/Woods.ppt
captain at BA that he could train a youngster to fly a 737 without
some of this GA stuff.
One supposes that there is a drive to reduce cost and £6.00 per minute in a GA twin that has technology that is obsolete in twin engined modern airliners is now just seen as too expensive.
Simulators are getting cheaper but GA flying is getting more and more expensive and the GA stock is now ancient......
The introduction of the multi-crew IR rating has already severed the link between GA and airline-IR work. Airline captains can no longer use their IR to fly a Seneca IFR withot undergoing a separate renewal.
Its also apparant that the skill knowledge and experience required to fly a twin on a public transport flight single crew
is a little different that flying a multi-crew modern glass cockpit airbus multi crew.
Will we all get refunds from the CAA?
See Page 17 re Flypuppy ICAO IR
http://aviation.fh-joanneum.at/JAR/Vortr%E4ge/Woods.pdf
www.halldalemedia.co.uk/eats2003/Woods.ppt
Last edited by RVR800; 19th Jan 2004 at 22:04.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Some dusty outpost in the ME
Age: 45
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay,
I have a few questions that perhaps those more qualified/experienced than I can answer;
1. I have no desire to go straight to jets, in the long term yes, but not to begin with. Does this proposal mean that my chances of ever flying jets will be diminished by such airline oriented training?
2. How proficient would such a training programme be given the significantly large amount of synthetic training. Will this breed a generation of button pushing pilots that will eventually be aircraft commanders? This could be a very short period of time with the likes of Ryanair, et al.
3. How will this effect those currently engaged in training programmes, modular or integrated, and should those considering starting training within the next year - like me - wait?
4. What is wrong the current system, other than trying to get a job at the end of your training?
I agree that most of the training platforms used by FTO’s are antiquated in comparison to the Glass environment of many modern commercial aircraft. But surely all the principles are the same, it’s just a different front-end to display the information.
If it is the case, that there is a projected shortfall of pilots and this is a proposal to meet the deficit, the safe option must be to extend the retirement age - it’s still 55 for BA is it not? - force low our pilots into an apprenticeship type training where competency and proficiency are paramount before being let loose.
I may be missing the point, but this is how I read the thread.
Your thoughts and comments are always appreciated.
F.
I have a few questions that perhaps those more qualified/experienced than I can answer;
1. I have no desire to go straight to jets, in the long term yes, but not to begin with. Does this proposal mean that my chances of ever flying jets will be diminished by such airline oriented training?
2. How proficient would such a training programme be given the significantly large amount of synthetic training. Will this breed a generation of button pushing pilots that will eventually be aircraft commanders? This could be a very short period of time with the likes of Ryanair, et al.
3. How will this effect those currently engaged in training programmes, modular or integrated, and should those considering starting training within the next year - like me - wait?
4. What is wrong the current system, other than trying to get a job at the end of your training?
I agree that most of the training platforms used by FTO’s are antiquated in comparison to the Glass environment of many modern commercial aircraft. But surely all the principles are the same, it’s just a different front-end to display the information.
If it is the case, that there is a projected shortfall of pilots and this is a proposal to meet the deficit, the safe option must be to extend the retirement age - it’s still 55 for BA is it not? - force low our pilots into an apprenticeship type training where competency and proficiency are paramount before being let loose.
I may be missing the point, but this is how I read the thread.
Your thoughts and comments are always appreciated.
F.