ICAO Co-Pilots need only 80 hrs airborne from 2006
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The Land Downunder
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I find interesting is that Simulator time under this proposal seems to be highly regarded for training a completely inexperienced guy/girl to airline standard. I have just been trying to convince the CAA to let me count 10 hours of my sim training towards my 500 hours multicrew to get my ATPL unfrozen, but guess what, the CAA told me simulator time can't count because the multicrew simulator time is not up to the same standard as actual aircraft flying/training. What a complete load of ****.
It seems to be that the objections here are of cost and lack of experience, so how valid are those objections.
Currently in the UK we have a situation where low houred pilots are paying 50k + for integrated courses, being unable to find work so then paying for instructor courses and working for a pittance until they discover that the hours they are building won't get them an airline job, and then paying another 25K for a self sponsered type rating scheme in order to become an F/O on a 737 or an airbus.
It is difficult to guess how much such a scheme as that proposed would cost, but I suspect a lot less than the route I have outlined above. UK airlines who are able to shop around amongst the European training providers can currently get sim time (if they supply the instructor themselves) on a level D sim for £400 per hour. The airlines are buying a lot of sim time, remember that an airline with 500 pilots will use a minimum of 3000 hours sim time per year just for recurrent training/testing and can get a good deal.
At that price the 80 hours sim (which would be split between two trainees remember) would cost £16k plus the wages for a TRI/SFI and could be completed in a month - no delays for weather, so total cost of that part of the course about £19k per student.
Then you have the cost of 80 hours in a single engine a/c, and assume the worst case that it is a complex type and you pay £200 per hour because your being ripped off - another £16000.
So total cost of the flying/sim element £32,000, to which has to be added the cost of ground tution, exam fees, living expenses etc. So cost wise it could be about the same or even less than an integrated course at the moment, but as it would be tied into an airline you should come out of it type rated and with a job to go to without the additional cost of CTC, FI ratings, living on air as an instructor etc.
As far as the experience thing goes, as a self improver I have to admit that none of my light aircraft instructing experience was any use to me in the airline business until I became a line trainer, although some of the air taxi experience was. If this type of course was structured properly - PPL for 50 hours in a PA28R for example followed by 30 hours of procedural flying using airline SOPs possibly with the same instructors who were going to conduct the sim course then there would be an easy transition to the multi crew environment and the job of the sim instructor would be a lot easier - it is true, as has been stated already earlier that young 200 hour pilots in current flying practice are a lot easier to train than more experienced but not very experienced ones who have to try to forget single crew habits.
As far as the being able to land the airliner in the pilot incapacitation scenario I would suggest that a 200 hour F/O with 40 hours sim and 160 hours light a/c time as we have at the moment coming from sponsership schemes is no better off than a graduate from this type of course would be.
I suspect the major objection to this will come from current CPL,IR and FI schools without access to level D sims, and hours building instructors, but from the point of view of the airlines, the airline trainers and the students themselves the idea has a lot in its favour.
Currently in the UK we have a situation where low houred pilots are paying 50k + for integrated courses, being unable to find work so then paying for instructor courses and working for a pittance until they discover that the hours they are building won't get them an airline job, and then paying another 25K for a self sponsered type rating scheme in order to become an F/O on a 737 or an airbus.
It is difficult to guess how much such a scheme as that proposed would cost, but I suspect a lot less than the route I have outlined above. UK airlines who are able to shop around amongst the European training providers can currently get sim time (if they supply the instructor themselves) on a level D sim for £400 per hour. The airlines are buying a lot of sim time, remember that an airline with 500 pilots will use a minimum of 3000 hours sim time per year just for recurrent training/testing and can get a good deal.
At that price the 80 hours sim (which would be split between two trainees remember) would cost £16k plus the wages for a TRI/SFI and could be completed in a month - no delays for weather, so total cost of that part of the course about £19k per student.
Then you have the cost of 80 hours in a single engine a/c, and assume the worst case that it is a complex type and you pay £200 per hour because your being ripped off - another £16000.
So total cost of the flying/sim element £32,000, to which has to be added the cost of ground tution, exam fees, living expenses etc. So cost wise it could be about the same or even less than an integrated course at the moment, but as it would be tied into an airline you should come out of it type rated and with a job to go to without the additional cost of CTC, FI ratings, living on air as an instructor etc.
As far as the experience thing goes, as a self improver I have to admit that none of my light aircraft instructing experience was any use to me in the airline business until I became a line trainer, although some of the air taxi experience was. If this type of course was structured properly - PPL for 50 hours in a PA28R for example followed by 30 hours of procedural flying using airline SOPs possibly with the same instructors who were going to conduct the sim course then there would be an easy transition to the multi crew environment and the job of the sim instructor would be a lot easier - it is true, as has been stated already earlier that young 200 hour pilots in current flying practice are a lot easier to train than more experienced but not very experienced ones who have to try to forget single crew habits.
As far as the being able to land the airliner in the pilot incapacitation scenario I would suggest that a 200 hour F/O with 40 hours sim and 160 hours light a/c time as we have at the moment coming from sponsership schemes is no better off than a graduate from this type of course would be.
I suspect the major objection to this will come from current CPL,IR and FI schools without access to level D sims, and hours building instructors, but from the point of view of the airlines, the airline trainers and the students themselves the idea has a lot in its favour.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Blighty
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
excrab,
I’m not disputing what you’re saying, you make some valid points. I’m just showing the objections from the point of a self sponsored wannabe.
Cost:
This new license will certainly reduce the cost of training – for airlines. They already have their own level D sims or at least access to heavily discounted time on them. There is no way that this would be going through if airlines were going to end up paying more!
However, for the self sponsored wannabe it will only raise the price. If only for the simple fact that it effectively rules out the modular route. Take OAT’s as an example; a calculator and quick poke around their website shows that the prices are as follows:
Modular: £31,180 – as this does not include a PPL and hour building lets add £10,000 and call it £41,180 for the whole ab-initio course.
This includes all skills tests, ATPL ground school and a combined MCC and JOT with 32 hours in a 737-400 sim.
Integrated: £61,500
This includes all the above plus about 8 extra hours in the sim.
The difference in cost? About 50%! Ok, they may not be identical courses but you get the same flight training from the same school and end up with the same license.
Yet Oxford charge 50% more for the integrated.
What I’m trying to show here is that while the cost to the training provider may or may not reduce, the price of the course to the student will not.
Today a wannabe can get his hands on a frozen ATPL for around £40,000ish. Under the proposed system I really doubt that anyone will be able to pick one up for less that £70,000ish.
Experience:
Will graduates of this new license be better pilots that those who graduate from the current system? I’ll leave that discussion to those with more knowledge and experience in this area.
What I am interested in is the fact that only a very small percentage of people get multi crew jobs straight after their training. Those that don’t get lucky have to scrape all the hours they can get and keep working their way up the food chain. This is certainly not easy but most of those who stick at it and keep plugging away building hours, experience and contacts will eventually get themselves a multi crew job.
But under the proposed system you *will not* have the opportunity to do this. The only thing you are qualified to fly is something multi crew. So if you don’t get a job pretty sharpish your skills and employability will keep on decaying…
What this system will create is a batch of desperate wannabes with 80 hours in their logbooks who absolutely have to get an airline job straight out of school or their careers are all but finished.
And we all know how hard that is to do.
--
HaM
I’m not disputing what you’re saying, you make some valid points. I’m just showing the objections from the point of a self sponsored wannabe.
Cost:
This new license will certainly reduce the cost of training – for airlines. They already have their own level D sims or at least access to heavily discounted time on them. There is no way that this would be going through if airlines were going to end up paying more!
However, for the self sponsored wannabe it will only raise the price. If only for the simple fact that it effectively rules out the modular route. Take OAT’s as an example; a calculator and quick poke around their website shows that the prices are as follows:
Modular: £31,180 – as this does not include a PPL and hour building lets add £10,000 and call it £41,180 for the whole ab-initio course.
This includes all skills tests, ATPL ground school and a combined MCC and JOT with 32 hours in a 737-400 sim.
Integrated: £61,500
This includes all the above plus about 8 extra hours in the sim.
The difference in cost? About 50%! Ok, they may not be identical courses but you get the same flight training from the same school and end up with the same license.
Yet Oxford charge 50% more for the integrated.
What I’m trying to show here is that while the cost to the training provider may or may not reduce, the price of the course to the student will not.
Today a wannabe can get his hands on a frozen ATPL for around £40,000ish. Under the proposed system I really doubt that anyone will be able to pick one up for less that £70,000ish.
Experience:
Will graduates of this new license be better pilots that those who graduate from the current system? I’ll leave that discussion to those with more knowledge and experience in this area.
What I am interested in is the fact that only a very small percentage of people get multi crew jobs straight after their training. Those that don’t get lucky have to scrape all the hours they can get and keep working their way up the food chain. This is certainly not easy but most of those who stick at it and keep plugging away building hours, experience and contacts will eventually get themselves a multi crew job.
But under the proposed system you *will not* have the opportunity to do this. The only thing you are qualified to fly is something multi crew. So if you don’t get a job pretty sharpish your skills and employability will keep on decaying…
What this system will create is a batch of desperate wannabes with 80 hours in their logbooks who absolutely have to get an airline job straight out of school or their careers are all but finished.
And we all know how hard that is to do.
--
HaM
But under the proposed system you *will not* have the opportunity to do this. The only thing you are qualified to fly is something multi crew. So if you don’t get a job pretty sharpish your skills and employability will keep on decaying…
Incidentally, the figure being discussed at the last ICAO meeting was 60 hours aircraft training, not 80!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes its seems incredible that there has been this complete change of attitude since the glass cockpit was introduced.
The big driver is cost. I suppose the FAA regulated airlines will from 2006 have a cost advantage over JAA regulated ones as far as co-pilot traiing is concerned....
The big driver is cost. I suppose the FAA regulated airlines will from 2006 have a cost advantage over JAA regulated ones as far as co-pilot traiing is concerned....
Penworth,
I have only read what has been on this thread, and added to that what little I recall when this was originally discussed last year, the 80 hours was a guess based on the current JAR CPL of 160 hrs (-80 hrs single = 80 hrs sim),
If it is to be 180 hrs sim I would agree with you that it would be impractical for a self improver or even an airline except perhaps the majors - although that would give a theoretical cost based on my estimates of 40k for the sim + 16k for the a/c = 56k + ground school etc, even if that added up to 75K it would still be cheaper than 61,500 for an Oxford integrated course followed by 23,000 for a self sponsored type rating at easjet.
BillieBob,
I understood that the original idea of the licence was that the sim would be done on the type which the trainee was going to fly, and as such would be tied in with an airline right from the start - it doesn't really work if people start offering the course on old 727 sims or whatever they happen to get their hands on cheaply. Thus the problem of only being able to fly one type doesn't arise as they would have a job assuming they completed the course. Also it should be remembered that all multi-crew type and Instrument ratings (thus effectively the ATPL) are specific to one type and need extensive groundschool and sim conversion to go from one to another, whatever the individuals experience.
The other thing which no one is mentioning is that whilst those who had not been sponsored wholly or partly by an airline may not have a crossover to multi-crew flying the same applies in reverse - thus someone who went down the modular route could find themself in a job market for instructors or single-crew air taxi pilots where salary levels were not artificially reduced by a ready supply of wannabee airline pilots prepared to work for a pittance in order to build the hours they needed to get a job with an airline.
I have only read what has been on this thread, and added to that what little I recall when this was originally discussed last year, the 80 hours was a guess based on the current JAR CPL of 160 hrs (-80 hrs single = 80 hrs sim),
If it is to be 180 hrs sim I would agree with you that it would be impractical for a self improver or even an airline except perhaps the majors - although that would give a theoretical cost based on my estimates of 40k for the sim + 16k for the a/c = 56k + ground school etc, even if that added up to 75K it would still be cheaper than 61,500 for an Oxford integrated course followed by 23,000 for a self sponsored type rating at easjet.
BillieBob,
I understood that the original idea of the licence was that the sim would be done on the type which the trainee was going to fly, and as such would be tied in with an airline right from the start - it doesn't really work if people start offering the course on old 727 sims or whatever they happen to get their hands on cheaply. Thus the problem of only being able to fly one type doesn't arise as they would have a job assuming they completed the course. Also it should be remembered that all multi-crew type and Instrument ratings (thus effectively the ATPL) are specific to one type and need extensive groundschool and sim conversion to go from one to another, whatever the individuals experience.
The other thing which no one is mentioning is that whilst those who had not been sponsored wholly or partly by an airline may not have a crossover to multi-crew flying the same applies in reverse - thus someone who went down the modular route could find themself in a job market for instructors or single-crew air taxi pilots where salary levels were not artificially reduced by a ready supply of wannabee airline pilots prepared to work for a pittance in order to build the hours they needed to get a job with an airline.
excrab - I'm not aware that I wrote anything different to what you suggest. The course will lead to a rating on one type of multi-pilot aeroplane. This is fine for airlines training their own people but the point is that it will not be suitable for a self-sponsored trainee, as Half a Mexican suggests.
The course profile that was discussed at the last ICAO meeting was:
Phase 1 - 60 hours SEP aircraft training, with emphasis on "upset training and inverted flight". It is not clear whether this phase would allow the issue of a PPL.
Phase 2 (Basic) - 60 hours on a 'Level A' synthetic training device. It is not clear exactly what this means as there is no ICAO definition of a Level A STD. It is though that it will equate more-or-less to a JAA FNPT2 (No motion but full visuals and representative of a particular aircraft type)
Phase 3 (Intermediate) - 60 hours on a 'Level A' STD
Phase 4 (Advanced) - 60 hours on a Level D STD. This phase includes a type rating. It is not clear whether any base training is envisaged or whether the type rating will effectively be ZFTT.
Conversion to a second and subsequent types will not be permitted until a certain level of line experience (amount to be decided) has been gained on the initial type.
The course profile that was discussed at the last ICAO meeting was:
Phase 1 - 60 hours SEP aircraft training, with emphasis on "upset training and inverted flight". It is not clear whether this phase would allow the issue of a PPL.
Phase 2 (Basic) - 60 hours on a 'Level A' synthetic training device. It is not clear exactly what this means as there is no ICAO definition of a Level A STD. It is though that it will equate more-or-less to a JAA FNPT2 (No motion but full visuals and representative of a particular aircraft type)
Phase 3 (Intermediate) - 60 hours on a 'Level A' STD
Phase 4 (Advanced) - 60 hours on a Level D STD. This phase includes a type rating. It is not clear whether any base training is envisaged or whether the type rating will effectively be ZFTT.
Conversion to a second and subsequent types will not be permitted until a certain level of line experience (amount to be decided) has been gained on the initial type.
