The Right Stuff -qualifications for command 737 and similar types
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Right Stuff -qualifications for command 737 and similar types
Some years ago there was a British charter operator Paramount Airways based at Bristol. Command slots were coming up and as one of the first officers was very experienced on the 737 with the company (he had been with them for three years and 2500 hours on type) he was chosen. His training was just over two weeks including simulator and left seat line flying and he gained his command.
As the chief pilot remarked when queried on the perceived short time allotted for this pilots switch to the LH seat " He has been flying for the company for over three years and he has extensive RAF time in command on Handley Page Victors. If we cannot assess him as suitable for command after observing him for all that time then there is something wrong. All he needs is to fly in the left seat to get practice at the nose-wheel steering and taking off and landing from that seat and that is that. He has already been assessed in his ability over three years with the company. What more is needed?"
In my view that was an enlightened approach to a command upgrade. In contrast to that era we now see command upgrade training lasting several months with high pressure simulator sessions including simultaneously applied multiple emergencies, and scenarios that would never happen in real life. Command line training takes place over the same period of several months until eventually final simulator sessions and final line training is completed. In one well known major international airline based in Hong Kong (no prize for guessing which one), the trainee captain attends a cocktail party and even if he has passed all technical tests, his command can be mysteriously knocked back by the elite management group.
While I understand there are regulatory minimum qualifications before a first officer attains a command of an airliner (not just the command type rating which a cadet can get in some countries) - I often wonder what are the mandatory simulator sequences required by Regulators before a pilot can legally be sent off in real command of (say) a 737 or even a 747.
An Australian regulation lays down a minimum of five hours for upgrading from first officer to captain on multi-engine aircraft above a certain weight. Mandatory sequences are listed and are the usual boxes of engine failure during take off, asymmetric flight, various instrument approaches and missed approaches. All these are done as part of cyclic simulator checks so there is nothing extraordinary about the regulatory minimum requirement. In other words nothing new that the pilot hasn't done countless times before.
So presuming our pilot selected for command training has reached company minimums in terms of flying hours with the company, time on type and so on, why is he then subjected to several months of "the right stuff" being bashed in the simulator and subjected to intense scrutiny en-route as if he was a criminal applying for parole, when the company management are already fully aware (or should be aware) of his experience and ability before his seniority number comes up for a shot at command.
It does seem an awfully expensive and dare I say superfluous process to require all this extra training (not required by the Regulator) just to go from the first officer seat to the captains seat, when the ability and character of the command trainee is already well known from his records with the company.
It should not be forgotten that our pilot has been flying as second in command of his jet airliner for three years (as a basic figure) and should already have the ability to command a jet airliner if the captain becomes incapacitated. Of course, we all know that is a tongue in cheek statement and that passengers would be horrified if they knew the truth and that is many airliners are crewed by a captain and a low hour apprentice building hours. Welcome to the real world of airline flying.
As the chief pilot remarked when queried on the perceived short time allotted for this pilots switch to the LH seat " He has been flying for the company for over three years and he has extensive RAF time in command on Handley Page Victors. If we cannot assess him as suitable for command after observing him for all that time then there is something wrong. All he needs is to fly in the left seat to get practice at the nose-wheel steering and taking off and landing from that seat and that is that. He has already been assessed in his ability over three years with the company. What more is needed?"
In my view that was an enlightened approach to a command upgrade. In contrast to that era we now see command upgrade training lasting several months with high pressure simulator sessions including simultaneously applied multiple emergencies, and scenarios that would never happen in real life. Command line training takes place over the same period of several months until eventually final simulator sessions and final line training is completed. In one well known major international airline based in Hong Kong (no prize for guessing which one), the trainee captain attends a cocktail party and even if he has passed all technical tests, his command can be mysteriously knocked back by the elite management group.
While I understand there are regulatory minimum qualifications before a first officer attains a command of an airliner (not just the command type rating which a cadet can get in some countries) - I often wonder what are the mandatory simulator sequences required by Regulators before a pilot can legally be sent off in real command of (say) a 737 or even a 747.
An Australian regulation lays down a minimum of five hours for upgrading from first officer to captain on multi-engine aircraft above a certain weight. Mandatory sequences are listed and are the usual boxes of engine failure during take off, asymmetric flight, various instrument approaches and missed approaches. All these are done as part of cyclic simulator checks so there is nothing extraordinary about the regulatory minimum requirement. In other words nothing new that the pilot hasn't done countless times before.
So presuming our pilot selected for command training has reached company minimums in terms of flying hours with the company, time on type and so on, why is he then subjected to several months of "the right stuff" being bashed in the simulator and subjected to intense scrutiny en-route as if he was a criminal applying for parole, when the company management are already fully aware (or should be aware) of his experience and ability before his seniority number comes up for a shot at command.
It does seem an awfully expensive and dare I say superfluous process to require all this extra training (not required by the Regulator) just to go from the first officer seat to the captains seat, when the ability and character of the command trainee is already well known from his records with the company.
It should not be forgotten that our pilot has been flying as second in command of his jet airliner for three years (as a basic figure) and should already have the ability to command a jet airliner if the captain becomes incapacitated. Of course, we all know that is a tongue in cheek statement and that passengers would be horrified if they knew the truth and that is many airliners are crewed by a captain and a low hour apprentice building hours. Welcome to the real world of airline flying.
In one well known major international airline based in Hong Kong (no prize for guessing which one), the trainee captain attends a cocktail party and even if he has passed all technical tests, his command can be mysteriously knocked back by the elite management group.
Tee Emm, have to say I agree with you - it's become far too complex with a lot of companies now.
Flying (dare I say commanding) an aircraft is quite simple but there's a whole army of people out there now trying to make it complicated.
Tee Emm: quote:
In one well known major international airline based in Hong Kong (no prize for guessing which one), the trainee captain attends a cocktail party and even if he has passed all technical tests, his command can be mysteriously knocked back by the elite management group.
I think you will find that the cocktail party used to take place BEFORE the course commenced! But hey, why spoil an old story with the facts!
In one well known major international airline based in Hong Kong (no prize for guessing which one), the trainee captain attends a cocktail party and even if he has passed all technical tests, his command can be mysteriously knocked back by the elite management group.
I think you will find that the cocktail party used to take place BEFORE the course commenced! But hey, why spoil an old story with the facts!
Last edited by Meikleour; 2nd Dec 2011 at 18:54.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,097
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Entry into airlines these days is relatively simple, borrow enough money and the job is yours. The 'chop' rate at civilian flying schools is non existent compared to military flying. Much of what is being covered in command courses now would have been covered previously as a part of continuation training for military pilots and through natural exposure within that all important first couple of thousand hours for those coming via the 'self improver' GA route and in both cases long before a civil jet command was due.
Companies have been all too eager to jump at the chance of a Pay2fly candidate, chuck him in the RHS and let the experienced captain deal with it, very different story when the company needs to strap a multi million pound jet to their backside and make them responsible for it. A present day command course could well be a CYA exercise by the company trying to make up for the lack of all the continuation training, either formally or through experience, that never happened.
Companies have been all too eager to jump at the chance of a Pay2fly candidate, chuck him in the RHS and let the experienced captain deal with it, very different story when the company needs to strap a multi million pound jet to their backside and make them responsible for it. A present day command course could well be a CYA exercise by the company trying to make up for the lack of all the continuation training, either formally or through experience, that never happened.
I certainly agree that some of the stories from CX and others seem strange. The fact is that there has always been a difference in upgrade failure rates between long haul and short haul pilots. The BEA/BOAC contrast way back when was stark and explained in part by the additional handling experience on short sectors.
Emirates has tried to avoid this by insisting on a certain level of experience for new FOs. Another factor is that in a smallish airline everyone knows everyone else. With thousands of pilots, management may well only have heard of someone for the wrong reasons.
These things also tend to become self perpetuating. If you go through such a system when you get into a situation of power you expect others to do what you did. At the end of the day CX obviously feel they can still afford a system which is inherently wasteful in this way.
Emirates has tried to avoid this by insisting on a certain level of experience for new FOs. Another factor is that in a smallish airline everyone knows everyone else. With thousands of pilots, management may well only have heard of someone for the wrong reasons.
These things also tend to become self perpetuating. If you go through such a system when you get into a situation of power you expect others to do what you did. At the end of the day CX obviously feel they can still afford a system which is inherently wasteful in this way.
