Do modular students get airline jobs?
It means that the training provider pulled everything together for you towards a single objective, rather than the student doing it.
Beelzebub, out of interest, what's your background in holding this perspective? Are you a trainer, a student, an airline pilot, a salesman?
Beelzebub, out of interest, what's your background in holding this perspective? Are you a trainer, a student, an airline pilot, a salesman?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may sound a bit flippant but what on earth is a 'vertical integration method' of teaching?
Beelzebub, out of interest, what's your background in holding this perspective? Are you a trainer, a student, an airline pilot, a salesman?
This methodology is not one that I employed in order to achieve an airline career, and to understand it would require that I set aside any in-built prejudice and preconceptions. I can understand why airlines utilize this form of recruitment and why the training involved is structured the way it is.
Funny you should say that, those that have seem to prefer flying with ex instructors.
It is where the course is taught towards the end objective of producing an airline pilot with low experience levels. As well as the generic knowledge, the airlines (specific and general) standard operating procedures and philosophies are also ingrained into the training regime. This happens up and down through the entire syllabus and allows for the succesful transition into this type of flying at this level of experience.
When people start focusing on procedures and philosophies first rather than basic skills then things go to ****.
See AF447 for details.
Last edited by Fostex; 4th Jun 2012 at 13:40.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G I have always taken Beelzebub as a respected trainer in a legacy Carrier who likes the product his choice I prefer alot more hand foot skills and experence.
He wants a blank bit of paper when coming into the training deptment. So much of a blank bit of paper they don't really have much clue about anything so you can teach them what ever you like.
They are also in the enviroment that a low houred pilot will always be stuck next a very experenced Captain who is in the main significantly older than them. This gets rid of most cockpit gradient issues. It won't matter that they won't have a clue for a long period because they won't get a sniff at the LHS for double figure years and possibly 1000's of hours as well.
They are also in the enviroment that the SOP's are more water tight than a ducks arse. And they are flying hardware which is suited to the magenta line borg. You can read numerous threads on here bitching about various SOP's being changed just to protect the company from low houred cadets. Also alot of carriers have quite strict limits based on experence about what conditions the FO can actually operate the plane in. For example I saw one card which stated that under 1000 hours they wern't allowed to land in more than 10knts xwind and no tail winds. 1000hrs on type and your up for the LHS in some companys.
Now the problem is that these carriers don't actually require enough of these pilots to sustane the amount of training places availabe or for that matter enough capacity that if they should require in the future that there will be sufficent availble to suit thier needs.
If there arn't enough people willing to self fund these courses the option won't be available in the future for them to have a choice how there cadets are trained unless they invest a significant outlay. Also there arn't pilots sitting on standby without work waiting to go, trained the way they want them.
Vertical intergration is just a fancy way of saying we ignore everything apart from getting them ready to join the magenta line Borg. Miss out all the airmanship stuff to do with flying singles and piston twins, just focus on being able to have the mangment skills to operate an automated flight deck. Then things like AF447 happen, which if they don't happen very often is an acceptable risk.
In essance if someone else is paying for these courses or has a deal going go for it. But if your self financing don't subidise the big boys training costs.
He wants a blank bit of paper when coming into the training deptment. So much of a blank bit of paper they don't really have much clue about anything so you can teach them what ever you like.
They are also in the enviroment that a low houred pilot will always be stuck next a very experenced Captain who is in the main significantly older than them. This gets rid of most cockpit gradient issues. It won't matter that they won't have a clue for a long period because they won't get a sniff at the LHS for double figure years and possibly 1000's of hours as well.
They are also in the enviroment that the SOP's are more water tight than a ducks arse. And they are flying hardware which is suited to the magenta line borg. You can read numerous threads on here bitching about various SOP's being changed just to protect the company from low houred cadets. Also alot of carriers have quite strict limits based on experence about what conditions the FO can actually operate the plane in. For example I saw one card which stated that under 1000 hours they wern't allowed to land in more than 10knts xwind and no tail winds. 1000hrs on type and your up for the LHS in some companys.
Now the problem is that these carriers don't actually require enough of these pilots to sustane the amount of training places availabe or for that matter enough capacity that if they should require in the future that there will be sufficent availble to suit thier needs.
If there arn't enough people willing to self fund these courses the option won't be available in the future for them to have a choice how there cadets are trained unless they invest a significant outlay. Also there arn't pilots sitting on standby without work waiting to go, trained the way they want them.
Vertical intergration is just a fancy way of saying we ignore everything apart from getting them ready to join the magenta line Borg. Miss out all the airmanship stuff to do with flying singles and piston twins, just focus on being able to have the mangment skills to operate an automated flight deck. Then things like AF447 happen, which if they don't happen very often is an acceptable risk.
In essance if someone else is paying for these courses or has a deal going go for it. But if your self financing don't subidise the big boys training costs.
Last edited by mad_jock; 4th Jun 2012 at 13:48.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When people start focusing on procedures and philosophies first rather than basic skills then things go to ****.
One would hope that somebody with a significant instructional background has both significant flying ability, and an excellent understanding of the need to work to rules and procedures.
Whilst my airline experience is very limited, my significant test flying experience is that ex-instructors generally make very good Test Pilots, because of their combined good communication and teamwork skills, and ability to observe and analyse what's going on.
Whilst my airline experience is very limited, my significant test flying experience is that ex-instructors generally make very good Test Pilots, because of their combined good communication and teamwork skills, and ability to observe and analyse what's going on.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes but you don't get wined and dined at the finest resurants for chucking 60 instructors into jobs and neither do you get a raft of tax breaks and reduce you NI bill by employing them.
On the other hand.......
On the other hand.......
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad Jock raises an interesting point.
In fact one of the main requests we have from cadets is for more hand flying. In my experience they have few problems on this score. A wider problem in the industry (and speaking from the perspective of 20,000 hours of this type of flying) is the global prevalance of "automation complacency" or "magenta line flying" call it what you will. I cannot pretend that my manual skills set is anything like as sharp as it might have been in the days flying the 707 or the turbprops and piston aircraft that preceded that early jet aircraft handling.
The reality of jet airliner flying in the second decade of the twenty first century is "automation" and "magenta line." That is always (and with the best will in the world) going to comprise over 90% of an airline pilots operation. Basic flying skills do become rusty and need to be practiced wherever feasible. That practice needs to be more than a couple of "raw data" approaches on the bi-annual simulator checks.
There is a focused importance on the need to recognise the levels of automation and when to switch between them. There is a focused importance on including manual flying as a part of the routine operation. It may be very de rigeuer to refer to cadets as the "children of the magenta line" but in fact it is the senior, very experienced pilots, like me, who are the main sinners in this respect.
The idea that 1000 hours of instructing, or 250 hours of "flying in all types of weather" somehow sets you up for a life as an airline pilot in a way that cadet entry never could, is frankly ludicrous. Even if that were just my opinion, the reality of those that have come into airline flying from just this sort of background simply doesn't bear that out.
In fact one of the main requests we have from cadets is for more hand flying. In my experience they have few problems on this score. A wider problem in the industry (and speaking from the perspective of 20,000 hours of this type of flying) is the global prevalance of "automation complacency" or "magenta line flying" call it what you will. I cannot pretend that my manual skills set is anything like as sharp as it might have been in the days flying the 707 or the turbprops and piston aircraft that preceded that early jet aircraft handling.
The reality of jet airliner flying in the second decade of the twenty first century is "automation" and "magenta line." That is always (and with the best will in the world) going to comprise over 90% of an airline pilots operation. Basic flying skills do become rusty and need to be practiced wherever feasible. That practice needs to be more than a couple of "raw data" approaches on the bi-annual simulator checks.
There is a focused importance on the need to recognise the levels of automation and when to switch between them. There is a focused importance on including manual flying as a part of the routine operation. It may be very de rigeuer to refer to cadets as the "children of the magenta line" but in fact it is the senior, very experienced pilots, like me, who are the main sinners in this respect.
The idea that 1000 hours of instructing, or 250 hours of "flying in all types of weather" somehow sets you up for a life as an airline pilot in a way that cadet entry never could, is frankly ludicrous. Even if that were just my opinion, the reality of those that have come into airline flying from just this sort of background simply doesn't bear that out.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One would hope that somebody with a significant instructional background has both significant flying ability, and an excellent understanding of the need to work to rules and procedures.
Whilst my airline experience is very limited, my significant test flying experience is that ex-instructors generally make very good Test Pilots, because of their combined good communication and teamwork skills, and ability to observe and analyse what's going on.
Within the airlines "cadet pilots" have become a very mature component. This is a much expanded concept, it isn't a new one. The cadets of 15 or 20 years ago are now a significant part of the instructors, examiners and management base, of those same companies (and others).
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes we all get rusty when we fly a managed cockpit.
But we still have the basics hard wired in even if they are rusty and its still there when it goes wrong even if its not quite as slick as when you were wanging your 707 round. But its still there.
An instructor for example is hardwired to lower the nose if they think they are stalling. They have more than likely stalled an aircraft 100's of times. They know that holding the stick full back is never going to save the day unlike the AF447 pilots. Thats going back to WW1 flying and dealing with the stall.
And to be honest though you haven't really said anything which desputes the point.
But we still have the basics hard wired in even if they are rusty and its still there when it goes wrong even if its not quite as slick as when you were wanging your 707 round. But its still there.
An instructor for example is hardwired to lower the nose if they think they are stalling. They have more than likely stalled an aircraft 100's of times. They know that holding the stick full back is never going to save the day unlike the AF447 pilots. Thats going back to WW1 flying and dealing with the stall.
And to be honest though you haven't really said anything which desputes the point.
In essance if someone else is paying for these courses or has a deal going go for it. But if your self financing don't subidise the big boys training costs.
Last edited by mad_jock; 4th Jun 2012 at 14:46.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere close to me
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had the pleasure to fly with Oxford graduate during my MCC / JOC course at Oxford.
And they was addicted to automation and magenta lines, as soon as we lifted of , and they was PF, Click click - LNAV, VNAV - AP , AT, job done!
Now I wanted to to hand fly the beast most possible, because I wanted to get value for my money, I knew that the autopilot was a very well capable pilot, and could fly the sim perfectly!
Yes, they where perfectly programmed robots, did not even have any SEP time PIC, now tell me about positive learning experience and the philosophies behind this?
I understand getting the correct mindset, and train of thought, to be streamlined into SOP's and check-lists, but these will have very limited experience being left to handle a situation where automation has failed, and they are alone in control, of course we know these things will NEVER happen, will they, just like AF447 would never happen!
I would say comparing to modular guys, who have been sorting out their own situation, and have had PIC time, been alone to handle whatever is thrown against them, the mentality of the airlines who believe in the streamlining of robots, is an extremely simplistic model.
Something Ryanair have proved, that regardless modular or integrated, if you have the right mindset you will succeed, of course given a chance.
However what these "big" training schools are doing, is locking out suitable candidates, just because they do not belong to the exclusive club that can afford to pay CTC £100.000 to get a job guarantee.
I am not impressed by what i have seen of their selection process, compared to what the germans and swiss do, this is a big joke, and another money spinning idea created by the people in charge!
And they was addicted to automation and magenta lines, as soon as we lifted of , and they was PF, Click click - LNAV, VNAV - AP , AT, job done!
Now I wanted to to hand fly the beast most possible, because I wanted to get value for my money, I knew that the autopilot was a very well capable pilot, and could fly the sim perfectly!
Yes, they where perfectly programmed robots, did not even have any SEP time PIC, now tell me about positive learning experience and the philosophies behind this?
I understand getting the correct mindset, and train of thought, to be streamlined into SOP's and check-lists, but these will have very limited experience being left to handle a situation where automation has failed, and they are alone in control, of course we know these things will NEVER happen, will they, just like AF447 would never happen!
I would say comparing to modular guys, who have been sorting out their own situation, and have had PIC time, been alone to handle whatever is thrown against them, the mentality of the airlines who believe in the streamlining of robots, is an extremely simplistic model.
Something Ryanair have proved, that regardless modular or integrated, if you have the right mindset you will succeed, of course given a chance.
However what these "big" training schools are doing, is locking out suitable candidates, just because they do not belong to the exclusive club that can afford to pay CTC £100.000 to get a job guarantee.
I am not impressed by what i have seen of their selection process, compared to what the germans and swiss do, this is a big joke, and another money spinning idea created by the people in charge!
Yes, test flying is a very small part of the industry. I would suggest that whilst it selects the best candidates with all the skills you state, many come from military backgrounds, and the rest are also the best qualified candidates from their respective backgrounds.
Within the airlines "cadet pilots" have become a very mature component. This is a much expanded concept, it isn't a new one. The cadets of 15 or 20 years ago are now a significant part of the instructors, examiners and management base, of those same companies (and others).
But I am comparing the many TPs I've worked or flown with, from every possible background. The instructors, particularly multi-crew instructors have generally slotted into a flight test environment very well, others have managed but have often found the transition tougher.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Answering the OP's post - yes.
Picking up on the handling skills argument, I think most of us agree that there are two very clear streams of aviators. Firstly, there are the throttle and stick type who are undoubtedly well rehearsed in how to fly an aircraft. Then there are the magenta children who are equally competent at operating an aircraft. There is a bit of overlap, mostly retained by hairy ar$ed ppruners who have too much time on their hands
Personally, if I am walking, talking baggage I prefer to have the operator sat at the front of the tube. Without doubt, flight safety has improved over the decades as systems (both technical and CRM based) have developed and I would suggest that the AF447 scenario is far less likely now that the old style captain/co-pilot testosterone driven accidents were some 30-40 years ago. Equally, when the computer says no, many of the magenta children will be looking left for inspiration. The worrying bit will be when the left hand seat is also occupied by a magenta child.
One final point - if you want to fly, don't think that an airline job will satisfy your thirst. It will pay the bills, feed your ego and possibly open the door to the occasional no/low cost knee-trembler. However, I guarantee that if you stick with an aviation a career, it will not be too many years before you get that FI rating and spend a few days a month having fun.
Picking up on the handling skills argument, I think most of us agree that there are two very clear streams of aviators. Firstly, there are the throttle and stick type who are undoubtedly well rehearsed in how to fly an aircraft. Then there are the magenta children who are equally competent at operating an aircraft. There is a bit of overlap, mostly retained by hairy ar$ed ppruners who have too much time on their hands
Personally, if I am walking, talking baggage I prefer to have the operator sat at the front of the tube. Without doubt, flight safety has improved over the decades as systems (both technical and CRM based) have developed and I would suggest that the AF447 scenario is far less likely now that the old style captain/co-pilot testosterone driven accidents were some 30-40 years ago. Equally, when the computer says no, many of the magenta children will be looking left for inspiration. The worrying bit will be when the left hand seat is also occupied by a magenta child.
One final point - if you want to fly, don't think that an airline job will satisfy your thirst. It will pay the bills, feed your ego and possibly open the door to the occasional no/low cost knee-trembler. However, I guarantee that if you stick with an aviation a career, it will not be too many years before you get that FI rating and spend a few days a month having fun.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Picking up on the handling skills argument, I think most of us agree that there are two very clear streams of aviators. Firstly, there are the throttle and stick type who are undoubtedly well rehearsed in how to fly an aircraft.
There is some debate though when the computers start giving you **** do you hit the red button and fly it or do you hang in there and try and sort it. At least if you have the background in flying be it 20 years ago you have at least got that skill set.
Trying to take a managed cockpit pilot back to one that you have to fly in is a much steeper learning curve than going the other way. They have to learn a skill set which they have never experenced before and takes motor skills which have never been developed past infancy.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Polymer Records
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had the pleasure to fly with Oxford graduate during my MCC / JOC course at Oxford.
And they was addicted to automation and magenta lines, as soon as we lifted of , and they was PF, Click click - LNAV, VNAV - AP , AT, job done!
Now I wanted to to hand fly the beast most possible, because I wanted to get value for my money, I knew that the autopilot was a very well capable pilot, and could fly the sim perfectly!
Yes, they where perfectly programmed robots, did not even have any SEP time PIC, now tell me about positive learning experience and the philosophies behind this?
And they was addicted to automation and magenta lines, as soon as we lifted of , and they was PF, Click click - LNAV, VNAV - AP , AT, job done!
Now I wanted to to hand fly the beast most possible, because I wanted to get value for my money, I knew that the autopilot was a very well capable pilot, and could fly the sim perfectly!
Yes, they where perfectly programmed robots, did not even have any SEP time PIC, now tell me about positive learning experience and the philosophies behind this?
The MCC/ JOC at Oxford, when I went through, was not about hand flying everything. You were there to learn how to fly in a multi crew environment and learn how modern jet aircraft are flown on the line.
There was an opportunity to hand fly the aircraft in numerous sim details, but In most you were "encouraged" to put the a/p in and concentrate on the learning objective of the sim detail. Keeping the a/p disengaged and insisting on hand flying everything sounds like a serious CRM failure!
Bearing in mind the increased workload of manual flight, on an MCC, with money paid by both trainees, I wonder if your sim partner also felt he "had the pleasure" of flying with you?
And I confess, truckflyer, your attitude has really annoyed me, but your English is extremely sub standard for someone who claims to have run his own business for 20 years. Are you a troll?
Last edited by Artie Fufkin; 4th Jun 2012 at 18:59.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere close to me
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct, but they also gave us the option during parts of the sorties, if we wanted to hand-fly or go full automatics straight away!
My partner was a great guy, not saying anything bad about him, however he was not very happy to do hand flying.
Also having spent close to £9x.xxx , he did not even have a SEP to show for, so he could go and take a flight to keep himself a bit current.
Yes sure, knock my language skills, that's a mature way of responding when it something that rubs your back! Guess English isn't my mother tongue! But it was good enough for you Artie Fufkin to das gut verstehen, oder was?
Bryr meg ikkje om ka du tenker jeg, uansett!
By the way, what exactly annoyed you? You yourself have not been a big fan of the aptitude tests, example from Gapan that you wrote about?
My partner was a great guy, not saying anything bad about him, however he was not very happy to do hand flying.
Also having spent close to £9x.xxx , he did not even have a SEP to show for, so he could go and take a flight to keep himself a bit current.
Yes sure, knock my language skills, that's a mature way of responding when it something that rubs your back! Guess English isn't my mother tongue! But it was good enough for you Artie Fufkin to das gut verstehen, oder was?
Bryr meg ikkje om ka du tenker jeg, uansett!
By the way, what exactly annoyed you? You yourself have not been a big fan of the aptitude tests, example from Gapan that you wrote about?
Last edited by truckflyer; 4th Jun 2012 at 19:57.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't argue with a vertical training program to train people who have been specifically recruited for a company training program, that makes total sense as with a cadet program they have gone through a genuine recruitment process and you have selected the people that you want to come work for you. You can always teach flying skills to someone and if you the customer has control over the standard of training then you will undoubtedly get the what you asked for or at least you know exactly the standard to which that person can fly "enough to pass the test".
Equally I think that it's a bit far fetched to suggest that the product produced by the integrated schools is any more impressive than a well rounded, well trained person coming through the modular program, the difference is that you have zero control over the standard of training and you also have zero control over the level of experience so in effect you have no yardstick of how to judge this pilots flying skill or capacity at the non-flying aspects of the job as well. This in effect is probably why modular guys are somewhat ignored by the large airlines because the amount of work required to find out if any of these thousands of CVs relates to someone useful is disproportionately large.
I've met several instructors who were a long way short of being employable so it's incorrect to say that all 1000 hr instructors are great but those who are employable are really great to fly with on a personal level. This may be more just my experience of course.
With integrated students you have a known quantity, they can fly well enough to start learning and can do the basics of what you require so all you need to figure out is what they will behave like in the job.
It's about "good enough to do the job". Truthfully that's what most employers want, but it does raise a question about how well rounded those people will be when they swap seats.
I did the MCC/JOC at OAA and there was heaps of automation but we decided to hand fly as much as possible because that's what's in the RYR assessment and what the course is there for is to get you through a sim assessment in a high performance aircraft. You get the real multicrew stuff when you do the TR and Line training. Learning to achieve the lesson objective while hand flying the aircraft was a far more difficult task and ultimately led to better understanding of what's going on. We did do the automatics stuff when it was required by the lesson but encouraging the students to constantly put the AP on suggests the instructor felt a lack of ability in hand flying that might distract from the course material 
.
What I also learned there was the basic flying skills of even the good cadets was pretty poor, they were excellent at flying with automation and getting the SOPs but give them something unexpected wind or wx wise then there was inevitably a panic. It unquestionably had something to do with the training they received in the US which sounded truly appalling. This may have been isolated but the stories I have heard from a reasonable number of ex students over a period of time would strongly suggest otherwise.
Equally I think that it's a bit far fetched to suggest that the product produced by the integrated schools is any more impressive than a well rounded, well trained person coming through the modular program, the difference is that you have zero control over the standard of training and you also have zero control over the level of experience so in effect you have no yardstick of how to judge this pilots flying skill or capacity at the non-flying aspects of the job as well. This in effect is probably why modular guys are somewhat ignored by the large airlines because the amount of work required to find out if any of these thousands of CVs relates to someone useful is disproportionately large.
I've met several instructors who were a long way short of being employable so it's incorrect to say that all 1000 hr instructors are great but those who are employable are really great to fly with on a personal level. This may be more just my experience of course.
With integrated students you have a known quantity, they can fly well enough to start learning and can do the basics of what you require so all you need to figure out is what they will behave like in the job.
It's about "good enough to do the job". Truthfully that's what most employers want, but it does raise a question about how well rounded those people will be when they swap seats.
I did the MCC/JOC at OAA and there was heaps of automation but we decided to hand fly as much as possible because that's what's in the RYR assessment and what the course is there for is to get you through a sim assessment
in a high performance aircraft. You get the real multicrew stuff when you do the TR and Line training. Learning to achieve the lesson objective while hand flying the aircraft was a far more difficult task and ultimately led to better understanding of what's going on. We did do the automatics stuff when it was required by the lesson but encouraging the students to constantly put the AP on suggests the instructor felt a lack of ability in hand flying that might distract from the course material .What I also learned there was the basic flying skills of even the good cadets was pretty poor, they were excellent at flying with automation and getting the SOPs but give them something unexpected wind or wx wise then there was inevitably a panic. It unquestionably had something to do with the training they received in the US which sounded truly appalling. This may have been isolated but the stories I have heard from a reasonable number of ex students over a period of time would strongly suggest otherwise
.
Last edited by Dan the weegie; 4th Jun 2012 at 19:58.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Polymer Records
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the way, what exactly annoyed you?
(Apologies for my crack at your English)
but encouraging the students to constantly put the AP on suggests the instructor felt a lack of ability in hand flying that might distract from the course material
Can't say I'd have been terribly impressed if my sim partner decided to fly this manually.
As I remember, the first 2 or 3 sessions involved manual flight and you were expected to be "up to speed" with flying the aircraft by the end of that.
Last edited by Artie Fufkin; 4th Jun 2012 at 22:08.