Training and Knowledge

[aterpster]

What does RHS mean in English?

[stepwilk]

Right-Hand Seat, I assume. Part of the fascination with acronyms.

[greybeard]

"Those that can, DO; Those that can't, Teach;, those that can't teach, CONSULT.

That's where the money is and the problem could lie.

The degredation of Training Standards, Instructor Knowlege, situational awareness vacuum in early exposure.

The worry is it is in all industries

[dood]

It is true.

Newly qualified fATPL here.

The concept of flight schools has changed dramatically. They've become pilot factories in essence. The major lack of knowledge comes from the databanks available for the ATPL exams. It's just become another tick in the box process and the authorities have helped make it as easy as possible.

Me and a few of my class mates fortunately or unfortunately had not heard of the data bank until my last module so had to work incredibly hard to get through the exam even if it was multiple choice. I managed to do fairly well and get first time passes. But, it wasn't good enough. The students who I have to compete with have avg. ATPL scores of 98%! compared to my 89%. I wondered for a while how this was possible and couldn't figure it out. It turns out that a lot of the ATPL students don't actually learn the material they are provided. Can you imagine answering exam questions based on the size of the question and the size of the answer rather than the content. This is what's happening.

Flight exams are specifically selected routes that are practiced again and again without much deviation. Throw a random hold or diversion into the mix and you'll see what happens.

But, the truth of the matter is it's only the results the airline's see. So will they hire cadets like me with an 89% avg result and a partial in one of the flight tests on a new route or, 98% and first time passes in a flight test. I have studied EU-OPS, taken the time out to learn and intern in Safety Management and CRM, got a very aviation orientated degree and do a desk job just so I can afford to glide now and then.

The truth is I won't be selected for interview before the integrated guys & girls and I'll always be at the back of the pile because I didn't spend twice the money to train at the 'approved' training centres that have all the connections. It is as much the fault of the airlines as the authorities. Now with the cadet scheme's from BA, Monarch, EZY etc that use the 'approved' schools. My batch of pilots are over-looked entirely.

I should've just forked out my £80-90k + TR money just after my A-levels and gone through these 'approved' schools. I'd probably be flying a shiny A320 now for a £1000 a month. It's all about money, professionalism is out the window.

[RAT 5]

Guys, this has much deeper and more disturbing ramifications. I wont get into the debate about the dilution of training; that has been hashed for years. Assuming it is correct to say that overall aviation training has been diluted, i.e. the basic foundations are more flimsy, less sturdy, then consider that the command requirement is now commonly 3000hrs, where as it was 5000hrs not so very long ago. In legacy airlines it is usually a function of time, often >10years, and perhaps 3 different types and regions of operation. Now in new rapidly expanding companies command can be had after 4 years, and in only 1 company and 1 type. It could be argued that therefore you should be intimate with your a/c, your area and company SOP's. If you are smart and the SOP's are solid, the a/c well maintained and the network in/out of large well equipped airports, a new captain will likely learn and gain confidence fast. A/c are more reliable, but mother nature is not, and the young expanding airlines operate into a vast spectrum of airports with a differing quality of facilities. An ILS into a radar airport is usually the same, but some middle of now-where airfields need a little more nouse. It is a point for discussion that the dilution of training is not just at entry level, but continues up into entry to command. With often less total cockpit experience than just a captain used to have, and, with a much more simple basic grounding it could be argued that many crews are on the back of the drag curve for their first few years. No doubt it is money driven. Answer? I have no quick one other than to restore the basic command criteria of a few more years under the wing of experience, rather than just trust the robotic trained monkey SOP 'anorak', but who sadly might not understand the why's & wherefore's behind those SOP's.

[paco]

Sadly, dood that's the way of the world these days . It's the same hurdle as trying for a job against those with padded logbooks, who get the jobs above more honest people. Not sure what one can do about it except hope for enlightened interviewers, but if it's in the hands of human remains, don't hold out much hope.

[RichardH]

Great post. Fully agree with all comments to date. I notice that all us who have been around a bit are saying the same thing!

Alarming lack of under-pinning knowledge in some cases. Had a UK student who didn't even know where Italy was, others need a calculator to work out 5% of 10,000 kg.

Regretfully I believe this is a reflection on the league table education system, whereby secondary schools can select an easier examination board so their results look better. The only people this is actually failing are the poor students who when entering the real world have a culture shock.

On the good side, there are some very capable & able students coming through the system who actually do want to know their stuff not just remembering answer C. Hopefully they will work their way up into positions that count and start asking some serious questions about the current "system".

[Machinbird]

Strictly for comparison, at 265 hours total military flight time, I completed the training command requirements and received my USN Wings. This training was the product of a massive training organization. All but 20 hours were in jet aircraft.

100% of the logged time was in actual flight. During that time, I checked out in 3 different aircraft types, carrier qualified in two of them, flew single pilot IFR, multi-aircraft formation, low level navigation, air to air gunnery and combat, bombing, and strafing. I also witnessed one aircraft spin in-but that wasn't supposed to be part of the syllabus .

Ground school was thorough and fully supported the syllabus. Despite the hurry up, then wait pace of training necessitated by a war-time environment, it took 14 months to complete the syllabus. As I recall, the value of the training in then dollars was about $250,000 (~1965).

When you consider that many of the things we did with the aircraft were not applicable to transport flying, the 250 hour point to begin flying commercially is of itself not unreasonable. What is likely missing from the current equation is the quality of instruction.

Droning along does not create skills. Adversity and challenge do.

[paco]

Machinbird - you've got it about right. The problem is that many 200 hour pilots do not reach even that level mentally. Where I would start is with the PPL training. A good foundation at that stage does wonders for later life, and there's not that much difference between the PPL and CPL anyway (maybe turbines engines and a couple of other bits). If the instructors were given the incentive to do ground school.........

[pontifex]

I was an MCC instructor at two different units from 2000 to 2007 having devised and written the package for the latter one. In my experience of that period the standard of students was wildly variable. By and large it depended on where the candidate gained his/her ATPL. Of course that is a generalisation, but I saw enough examples to make the comment valid. Some were so bad that I could not believe that the student had really passed an IRT. To be honest I sometimes suspected dirty work at the crossroads. On the other hand, some were so good that I was in awe of their ability and capability to absorb information. I would have had no qualms with them going straight into the RHS of any Airbus (yes I have flown both B and A) So I have to concur with the opinion that the problem lies with the standard of instruction with finances as the root cause. Our government's insistence on charging VAT on training and related costs, the lack of sponsorship for students and, lastly, poor instructors remuneration are combining to create a "perfect storm". Oh dear! What is the solution. I don't know.

[Sirijus]

Maybe if there was less attention to unimportant in the real world but important for the exam stuff, we could concentrate more on the serious things - navigating, calculating and understanding performance, procedures, etc. I don't really care about what wind is blowing in Madagascar every three years on May the 2nd in the evening, or how to write 36 in binary system. Instead of learning that, let me give more attention to operational stuff and I will satisfy my future employer!

Just my 2 cents

[mad_jock]

I used to think the same about some of the met stuff.

Then I had to land in Madagascar on May the 2nd

The monsoon stuff I didn't believe was much use, now planning a ferry flight in a couple of months time it allows me to choose a suitable route without killer head winds.

Alot of the stuff use isn't apparent when you learn it but in the future it is.

[Nick 1]

In my opinion , the magics words are "selection" and "training".
As the time (or the money) to train a pilot in an airliner is the same , is better to choose the right material to have the better product.
Today selection as changed in money , so company doesn't want to pay for instructors , screening and training.
Is possible to join a RHS almost without a real selection.
I think that , if there is the possibility that you 'll be discharged along the way
( like in military training ) you are moore keen to listen and study.

[maxed-out]

TonyDavis

It works both ways I'm afraid. Some MCC instructors do not belong anyware near a sim; nevermind an aircraft. I did my MCC with a well known provider in the South and let me tell you, the instructor my partner and I had was a grumpy old retired f@rt. Kept on refering to the good old days when the first officer had his knuckels broken if he didn't do something to his taste. Not something you say to a low timer during an MCC course, is it?

Comments about making dark skinned first officers wear gloves to track their hand movements were also inappropriate.!!!!

Food for thought isn't it?

[pudoc]

I think some of it comes down to the student as well.

I've seen plenty of people who I'm training with atm who's frame of mind is to do just enough and think anything more is crazy.

It seems to me it takes nothing special to be a pilot, just a lot of money. It takes a lot of effort and the right attitude to be a good pilot though.

I'm young and still doing my training so could somebody tell me what it was like to get trained say 20 years ago? Could anyone with cash just be a pilot or was there more of a 'want to do my best' attitude as people fought for sponsorship? If the later, then I can see how the whole money thing has left to the results described above. Not that I've seen any of it myself for obvious reasons.

What I describe above isn't most students where I'm at, just a good few.

Although the syllabus doesn't help. I couldn't care less about what materials make up the neurons in my spine. Don't see how this made its way into human performance. Maybe it should just be called biology??

I say bring in oral exams like in the US. That's where you can really see who has a real understanding. Can't learn any answers for that.

[TonyDavis]

Well it seems I have opened up an interesting post.

I hope that the training industry is taking note and also the CAA and EASA.

I really do believe we are building a problem for the future.

The MPL is the first good look at the modern training world, however it is not working in Europe or probably the US where most trainee pilots are self sponsored. We really do need to look at the traditional syllabus as well.

As it stands, most of the existing syllabus is based around 1940's to 1950's applications with bits bolted on to try to bring it up to date. It needs a radical, intelligent overhaul.

Yes there are dedicated students in the present system who do go the extra mile, but there are also a lot who tend to do the absolute minmum.

Posts in this forum show that there are a large number who just want to know the answer and are not interested in the why's and wherefore's.

I think one good start is to bring in a new module on operating procedures and take students through an actual flight to highlight the areas where knowledge is needed, however this maybe too difficult as it could open another can of worms. MCC training does show this up, but it is a very short course and where do you draw the line when you have to teach someone to fly a SID or STAR and start delving into performance, jet engine operation, high altitude flight, Mach numbers and the list goes on and on.

Then there is the issue of flight managment and cognitive functions. I have developed some quick Aide Memoir's but it really needs more time and should not be done in an expensive simulator.

I dont think for one moment that any of these discussions will lead to anything meaningful, but at least a few years from now I will be able to say 'I told you so' LOL

[Pull what]

A great start would be to teach situational awareness on the PPL!

[Dan the weegie]

Yes there are dedicated students in the present system who do go the extra mile, but there are also a lot who tend to do the absolute minmum.

And that's where the problem is, the airlines don't bother to figure out who those people are, they just pick the people that meet the numbers, or get them the best deal on sim time with the relevant integrated provider.

So, get ticks in the box, get the numbers and pay for your type rating and you have as much chance of landing a job as a pilot who slogged their way through, learning the material getting worse ATPL results because they didn't blast the question bank and loves it so much that he puts the effort it to deliver a good performance buys a little ****heap plane, maintains it, puts a couple of hundred hours on it learning plenty about handling, wind, maintenance, control surfaces etc.
The exams are irrelevant, they always will be. It's the quality of the people and on the face of it, that's being ignored.

You might even sneer and say but what's all that got to do with SIDs, STARs, SOPs, and Jets? Perhaps nothing but that would mean we're back at square one.

Pull What, you can't teach situational awareness on the PPL, they're 100% maxxed on the basics. It's possible to try and in the cases of the really good students you can work them hard on it but really it's something that comes after a couple of hundred hours.

[fwjc]

TD I think I agree with much of what you say. Just finished the theoretical part, learning the subject and learning the exam questions and answers are two different ball games.

I think there's a bigger problem here though over and above the theoretical material, which I'm sure at least some will stand us in good stead in the future as m-j says.

The fact is that factory pilots have never stretched their aviation envelope in the same way that GA pilot self-improvers have done. They've never gone off ill prepared and regretted it, they've never had to make a real captain's decision about whether to divert under pressure. They've never really learned what's making those wings stay up in the air, besides money, and how to fix it when the bernoullis are no longer situated in the preferred position.
They've never learned to listen to an aeroplane, cos they'll tell you when something's not right. The coupling may not be the same in a big jet, but once the Real Principles of Flight are in-built, that pilot has half a chance of being ahead of a situation rather than behind it. As someone said, being scared at least once in an aeroplane is a great humbler and teaches a whole lot.

Dood, with you too. People who might well be a whole lot better are overlooked on the back of numbers, and that is plain wrong.

[TonyDavis]

Reading through the posts on this subject, I find it interesting that most of the comments agree that there is a problem, but nobody seems to know what to do about it or do not really care. I find it interesting that out of the hundreds of trainee pilots that read these forums, not one has asked how he/she can improve his/herself.

I have an idea to set up a virtual flight, detailing all of the areas where knowledge is required, this will show trainees the areas where they are weak and can concentrate on putting it right. The materials for learning are out there, it only has to be pointed out where to look and what is important and what is bulls**t.

Questions such as :
Q2495 "For inbound procedures, how many copies of the required forms are to be delivered to the public authority in a state?"
A- 3 GEN dec; 3 cargo manifest; 2 simple stores list
B- 2 GEN dec; 3 cargo manifest; 2 simple stores list
C- 3 GEN dec; 3 cargo manifest; 3 simple stores list
D- 3 GEN dec; 2 cargo manifest; 2 simple stores list

Q2478 "The phases related to an aircraft in emergency or believed
in emergency are:"
A- uncertainty phase, alert phase, distress phase.
B- uncertainty phase, urgency phase,distress phase.
C- uncertainty phase, distress phase, urgency phase.
D- uncertainty phase, alert phase, distress phase and urgency phase.

Have no relevance whatsoever in the real world and quite honestly who cares

The problem lies in that the student is not equipped to sort out the wheat from the chafe, nor it appears are many instructors.

It was said to me many years ago by a CAA examiner that the reason these type of questions are used is a filter system to stop everyman and his dog getting a pilot's licence. I do not disagree with that approach, the problem now is that with multi-choice and some cash, everyman and his dog can pass this filter.

With regard to the 2 questions above, I would probably fail them. Did that make me a poor pilot ? Maybe I was.