Multi-crew Pilots Licence (formerly: South African Airway's plan to get co-pilots)
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: KDEN
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sim and the aircraft are different places, different environments. Just last year we had a low-time First Officer emerge from simultaor training without difficulty (his first airline job, turboprop). Struggled through a fair-weather week of IOE. Began flying the line, and upon the commencement of his first instrument approach procedure with people in the back, simply froze up. Crossed his hands, looked out the window, stopped moving, stopped talking, stopped listening. Wouldn't respond to the captain, wouldn't say a word. He just let the captain fly the procedure, configure the aircraft, and run the radios all by his lonesome.
Once safely on terra firma, he packed up his stuff and walked away without a word. Needless to say, he was terminated, and he didn't even protest. My point: The simulator does not always separate the men from the boys.
Once safely on terra firma, he packed up his stuff and walked away without a word. Needless to say, he was terminated, and he didn't even protest. My point: The simulator does not always separate the men from the boys.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sim and the aircraft are different places, different environments. Just last year we had a low-time First Officer emerge from simultaor training without difficulty (his first airline job, turboprop). Struggled through a fair-weather week of IOE. Began flying the line, and upon the commencement of his first instrument approach procedure with people in the back, simply froze up. Crossed his hands, looked out the window, stopped moving, stopped talking, stopped listening. Wouldn't respond to the captain, wouldn't say a word. He just let the captain fly the procedure, configure the aircraft, and run the radios all by his lonesome.
Once safely on terra firma, he packed up his stuff and walked away without a word. Needless to say, he was terminated, and he didn't even protest. My point: The simulator does not always separate the men from the boys.
Once safely on terra firma, he packed up his stuff and walked away without a word. Needless to say, he was terminated, and he didn't even protest. My point: The simulator does not always separate the men from the boys.
Lucifer,
If these 240 hour graduates could somehow land a widebody jet without hydraulics as did the UAL and DHL crews without any previous "simulator" training, your confidence in this idea might be more understandable, but I don't see them surviving any scenario that wasn't included in the syllabus by some training committee.
If these 240 hour graduates could somehow land a widebody jet without hydraulics as did the UAL and DHL crews without any previous "simulator" training, your confidence in this idea might be more understandable, but I don't see them surviving any scenario that wasn't included in the syllabus by some training committee.
Cardinal,
Was this at a US Regional airline? I've heard due to the low pay and non-existent advancement outlook that the bottom of the barrel is being scraped for pilots. I've heard of classes where nobody shows up and Captains who have had FO's in jet marvel out the view outside because they've never flown in clouds
Was this at a US Regional airline? I've heard due to the low pay and non-existent advancement outlook that the bottom of the barrel is being scraped for pilots. I've heard of classes where nobody shows up and Captains who have had FO's in jet marvel out the view outside because they've never flown in clouds
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: KDEN
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, a small US regional. Classes often have vacancies, and lots of staring out the window happens. Increasingly when you spend some time with the new guys you wonder how they ended up here.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Dubai U.A.E.
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How EK does it
Someone posted a few pages back that this is how the Emirates cadet program is run. Well not exactly. The cadets, after passing the initial selection course, are schooled in a number of areas i.e. Aviation English etc. after which they are sent to Adelaide. They return from Adelaide with a frozen ATPL and about 250hrs total flight time, both single and twin.
The next phase is a bridge course that consists of ground school, procedures trainer, fixed base and full flight sim. This takes between 4 and 6 months to complete. Only on successful completion of this do they begin the type-rating course, either B777 or A330. On completion of full flight sim they embark on line training which involves base training (circuits and bumps) and no less than 80 sectors with an instructor on varied routes worldwide.
What hasn’t been mentioned is the wash out rate. Only the very best ever make it to the line training. The wash out is ruthless and has the full backing of the Chairman. Out of every 100 potential cadets who apply to the scheme only +- 10 ever make it onto the line. Emirates is proof that this type of training can be effective but the overseers must have absolute authority to remove any underperformers. Knowing affirmative action and South African politics I doubt that this element will be incorporated which renders the whole scheme flawed and dangerous.
The next phase is a bridge course that consists of ground school, procedures trainer, fixed base and full flight sim. This takes between 4 and 6 months to complete. Only on successful completion of this do they begin the type-rating course, either B777 or A330. On completion of full flight sim they embark on line training which involves base training (circuits and bumps) and no less than 80 sectors with an instructor on varied routes worldwide.
What hasn’t been mentioned is the wash out rate. Only the very best ever make it to the line training. The wash out is ruthless and has the full backing of the Chairman. Out of every 100 potential cadets who apply to the scheme only +- 10 ever make it onto the line. Emirates is proof that this type of training can be effective but the overseers must have absolute authority to remove any underperformers. Knowing affirmative action and South African politics I doubt that this element will be incorporated which renders the whole scheme flawed and dangerous.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The one thing that a simulator can never replicate is the 'mortality' factor. Whilst I shall leave the rest of you on here to debate the pros and cons of this new licence which reduces even further the actual flying experience of the trainee, the one thing that actual flying experience versus simulated flying experience cannot replicate is that subconcious fear that we manage to suppress knowing that if we really screw it up it's going to hurt real bad or worse! 
It is those pilots that have flown in marginal situations and learnt from their experiences that will have the real advantage when things get bad later on. No one is denying that you can't train a pilot with less flying hours and many more sim hours to operate the aircraft. How many hours does a fast jet military pilot have before being let loose?
As with most things in aviation, the beancounters rule and this new licence is just another example of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. Lip service will be paid to how safety is the number one priority but in reality we all know that it is a compromise between profit and loss!
The fear of failing a course in the sim can never replace the fear of knowing that the consequences of getting it wrong is going to kill you!
I remember about five years ago when someone from South African Airways first proposed this new licence. SAA have been the drivers behind it and no doubt, with the backing of most of the worlds major airlines, they have seen it to fruition as most countries will introduce the MPL soon. Ah, when I were a lad...
It is those pilots that have flown in marginal situations and learnt from their experiences that will have the real advantage when things get bad later on. No one is denying that you can't train a pilot with less flying hours and many more sim hours to operate the aircraft. How many hours does a fast jet military pilot have before being let loose?
As with most things in aviation, the beancounters rule and this new licence is just another example of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. Lip service will be paid to how safety is the number one priority but in reality we all know that it is a compromise between profit and loss!
The fear of failing a course in the sim can never replace the fear of knowing that the consequences of getting it wrong is going to kill you!I remember about five years ago when someone from South African Airways first proposed this new licence. SAA have been the drivers behind it and no doubt, with the backing of most of the worlds major airlines, they have seen it to fruition as most countries will introduce the MPL soon. Ah, when I were a lad...
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hotels everywhere
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right on Dan - its all about mortality - or the level of risk you are perceived to be exposed to - which determines the amount of training (and reward) you receive.
An airmail pilot in 1926 earned almost a MILLION dollars ( in 2006 dollars - adjusted for inflation etc ) per year, but did not live very long.
Cathay A scale pilots in the early days (1950's) were on several HUNDRED THOUSAND a year.
Today I know pilots in Canada ( JAZZ ) who work for 40 000 CA$ a year.
WHY????
Cause flying has become easier, there's less decision making and planes safer. We are worth less because we dont die so often any more....
However sooner or later less and less training and experience will not be balanced any more by safer and safer aircraft - and we will start to die again. Only then things will change.
Or Airbus will succeed and build them pilotless...
An airmail pilot in 1926 earned almost a MILLION dollars ( in 2006 dollars - adjusted for inflation etc ) per year, but did not live very long.
Cathay A scale pilots in the early days (1950's) were on several HUNDRED THOUSAND a year.
Today I know pilots in Canada ( JAZZ ) who work for 40 000 CA$ a year.
WHY????
Cause flying has become easier, there's less decision making and planes safer. We are worth less because we dont die so often any more....
However sooner or later less and less training and experience will not be balanced any more by safer and safer aircraft - and we will start to die again. Only then things will change.
Or Airbus will succeed and build them pilotless...
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes SIC, absolutely right about the relative difficulty in flying nowadays. Anyone, who can walk and talk at the same time, can raise the money and pass a few simple exams can do it. All this nonsense about ‘the mortality factor’ is just that. The sophistication and reliability of aircraft now means that flying is much safer and will continue to get more so. Danny and co are desperately trying to hang onto the myth, it is simply not necessary to manually fly NDB’s etc they are history and when the civil world catches up with the military in using three dimensional GPS, which in the interests of safety will happen, then you won’t need ‘pilots’ with any hours but systems operators monitoring the control of events from the ground if that. No one thought forty years ago that driverless trains would happen. As for pilots saving lives, unfortunately it is usually the other way around, if the aircraft malfunctions your chances of surviving are statistically poor. For every DC10 hero there are a dozen muppets witness the Cyprus incident. In any case it is the licensing authority that will determine the experience requirements for the issue of a licence not the airline. Similar things are planned for JAR licenses.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wont work in "The Great White North"
I cant speak for SAA and their training but I hope the bean counters dont think it will work in Canada where only about 20% of the flying is "airline type" My youngest is a good example of what is needed over here, her first season was on floats way up North and on her own apart from about 700 First Nations folks, can you even contemplate doing this kind of flying, ie glassy water/rough water/ freezing spray/no docks or dockhands with only 70hrs PIC?Second season, fire detection, now medivac into black hole gravel strips, no NDBs or ILS and all this in an MU2!Also gets to see the other side as most flights bring the patient down South to busy airports . During my time in the heavy metal I found that those coming from this type of flying were light years ahead of those we took from the "Puppy Farms" an experiment which lasted about six months may I add! We recently had some grads of a UK colledge{sorry, no names} They were bright and smart but lacking in any of the skills needed in this type of flying, unforunately we had to terminate them before who lost an aircraft, they had spent huge amounts of money and were I feel short changed by the system, so maybe if its all vectors and long paved runways this will work, but not here.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For every DC10 hero there are a dozen muppets witness the Cyprus incident.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bush Flying has got nothing to do with this scenario 'clunckdriver' and 'CarltonBrowne the FO' the vast majority of airline pilots these days will complete a whole career with no significant aircraft failures. Engine and system problems are rare, unless you forget to switch them on of course, but automation will pre empt those problems. Fact is that an awful lot of airlines are now recruiting very low houred people, they don't have to fly with floats or deal with life threatening 'hands on' situations, they just push the buttons. As for situations that the autopilot cannot cope with, come off it.
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that aircraft and their systems are so reliable is so as to enhance their safety in the hands of a well trained and suitably experienced crew - not for their safety margin to be eroded by inexperienced 'machine/systems operators' because they are 'easy to fly'.
There is a whole lot more to flying an aeroplane, than just operating the machine.
There is a whole lot more to flying an aeroplane, than just operating the machine.
Originally Posted by SIC
Cause flying has become easier, there's less decision making and planes safer. We are worth less because we dont die so often any more....
Originally Posted by d246
the vast majority of airline pilots these days will complete a whole career with no significant aircraft failures
Originally Posted by d246
As for situations that the autopilot cannot cope with, come off it
Originally Posted by d246
In any case it is the licensing authority that will determine the experience requirements for the issue of a licence not the airline.
Originally Posted by 246d
when the civil world catches up with the military in using three dimensional GPS, which in the interests of safety will happen
With just one year from the start of general flying theory to TR, the whole syllabuss has to be very dumbed down. Chances of getting good pilots (or even good sysops) from it are minimal. I just hope someone realises it before someone gets hurt.
Oh, and for the uninformed, there is more to inside of the clouds than just the looks. And that's the part I find not-so-reallistically simulated even in level D sims.
There, now I can close my OVBD VENT valve. However, I have a nagging feeling that I have just fed a troll...
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If these 240 hour graduates could somehow land a widebody jet without hydraulics as did the UAL and DHL crews without any previous "simulator" training, your confidence in this idea might be more understandable, but I don't see them surviving any scenario that wasn't included in the syllabus by some training committee.
(b) The "death zone" of between 45 and 200 hours encountered by many students is called that for a reason, and eliminating that time spent unsupervised, hour building, and generally wasting money in a non-airline environment, and replacing it with a learning, constructive simulator environment can only be a positive thing; and,
(c) Huge numbers of airlines have taken many people with just 200 hours over the last 50 years - what many consider "dangerous". What the MPL produces is not only no different, but many people have also seen fantastic 200 hours pilots, who can handle the lot when it all goes awry. Name me a BOAC/BEA/BA accident caused by a 200 hr graduate with insufficient training?
The danger has little to nothing to do with the MPL, and everything to do with adequate selection. The danger with SAA is positive discrimination that allows lower standards based upon colour - be they white, black or Indian. The danger is that the simulator training is added to the course yet adds nothing to the training. The danger is that the total training is insufficient.
The danger does not lie in substituting essentially useless time in the air for productive time on the ground.
If you don't have a sense of mortality after 70 hours, pray when are you going to obtain it? Magically at 200 hours? Come on, that is tosh.
Very well put, Lucifer and Studi. It would be even better if it we were discussing replacing SEP hour building for fATPL with level D sim hours but no such luck! What we have here is compressing the process which currently takes about two years, at the fastest, to one (1) year. Are you sure that everything that will be left out is useless? Surely we can do away with VFR droning and LORAN theory but I'm afraid that some basic stuff, like flight mechanics and aerodynamics will be severly reduced, to let MPL students to have barely enough time to learn the systems. After all, there' seems to be widespread notion that modern airline pilot is merely systems operator, so who needs aerodynamics with operative alpha protection.
Off the record, SAS flight academy crunched the numbers and found out that MPL would cost about 100 000€, a few K€ more then their current fATPL+TR syllabus. Mind you, that's for real cost of fATPL and TR, and not the price charged to the outside customers. Only benefit of MPL, as proposed, is increased simulator utilization.
Even more off record, certain airline had very nice cadetship sheme. Not much droning, more than half flight time on multi and about 60 hrs of it on very well equiped PA-42 (5 CRT EFIS, WXrad). Cross country would easily take student across the borders, cruise was done at high twenties and well above 250kt, there was presurization and anti-icing to take care of and its Vref was always above 100 kt. Not to mention that it was challenging to land well, at least for someone with a bit over 100 hrs TT. Alas, someone disregarded the benefits of learning to fly on such an advanced machine and ordered replacing Cheyennes with Senecas as more cost efficient solution to trainning needs. A year later, cadets with all-seneca experience started their TR courses and, to everyone's surprise, regularly needed aditional sim hours. I guess this still made economical sense, but hour-for-hour, even the complex turboprop twin was cheaper to operate than level D sim (in the late nineties, that is).
Off the record, SAS flight academy crunched the numbers and found out that MPL would cost about 100 000€, a few K€ more then their current fATPL+TR syllabus. Mind you, that's for real cost of fATPL and TR, and not the price charged to the outside customers. Only benefit of MPL, as proposed, is increased simulator utilization.
Even more off record, certain airline had very nice cadetship sheme. Not much droning, more than half flight time on multi and about 60 hrs of it on very well equiped PA-42 (5 CRT EFIS, WXrad). Cross country would easily take student across the borders, cruise was done at high twenties and well above 250kt, there was presurization and anti-icing to take care of and its Vref was always above 100 kt. Not to mention that it was challenging to land well, at least for someone with a bit over 100 hrs TT. Alas, someone disregarded the benefits of learning to fly on such an advanced machine and ordered replacing Cheyennes with Senecas as more cost efficient solution to trainning needs. A year later, cadets with all-seneca experience started their TR courses and, to everyone's surprise, regularly needed aditional sim hours. I guess this still made economical sense, but hour-for-hour, even the complex turboprop twin was cheaper to operate than level D sim (in the late nineties, that is).
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oz
Age: 75
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Below is what the JAA are planning for the MPL theory. I don't see much in the way of a reduction in standards. In addition the ICAO requirement is for ATPL level knowledge, so the opportunity to cut corners is unlikely to be available regardless of what operators may wish to do. As for completeing the course in one year - that really is dream world stuff. 750 hours of theory is > 21 weeks just for openers.
9 The theoretical knowledge syllabus is set out in Appendix 1 to JAR-FCL 1.470. An approved ATPL(A) theoretical knowledge course shall comprise at least 750 hours (1 hour = 60 minutes instruction) of instruction which can include classroom work, inter-active video, slide/tape presentation, learning carrels, computer based training, and other media as approved by the Authority, in suitable proportions.
The 750 hours of instruction shall be divided in such a way that in each subject the minimum hours are:
Subject hours
Air Law 40
Aircraft General Knowledge 80
Flight Performance & Planning 90
Human Performance & Limitations 50
Meteorology 60
Navigation 150
Operational Procedures 20
Principles of Flight 30
Communications 30
Other sub-division of hours may be agreed between the Authority and the FTO.
The theoretical knowledge instruction for the type rating shall be in accordance with Appendix 1 to JAR-FCL 1.261(a), and shall cover the syllabus as set out in AMC FCL 1.261(a).
9 The theoretical knowledge syllabus is set out in Appendix 1 to JAR-FCL 1.470. An approved ATPL(A) theoretical knowledge course shall comprise at least 750 hours (1 hour = 60 minutes instruction) of instruction which can include classroom work, inter-active video, slide/tape presentation, learning carrels, computer based training, and other media as approved by the Authority, in suitable proportions.
The 750 hours of instruction shall be divided in such a way that in each subject the minimum hours are:
Subject hours
Air Law 40
Aircraft General Knowledge 80
Flight Performance & Planning 90
Human Performance & Limitations 50
Meteorology 60
Navigation 150
Operational Procedures 20
Principles of Flight 30
Communications 30
Other sub-division of hours may be agreed between the Authority and the FTO.
The theoretical knowledge instruction for the type rating shall be in accordance with Appendix 1 to JAR-FCL 1.261(a), and shall cover the syllabus as set out in AMC FCL 1.261(a).
Alpine Flyer: A furloughed pilot who instructs on the CRJ sim. and in the actual aircraft gave me a short description of a guy who went throught the Gulfstream program in Florida. We were walking up a jetway at DFW. This Gulfstream program included the basic ratings, then some experience as B-1900 First Officer.
When this new pilot was then hired by a different company with CRJs, the guy had some serious problems flying instrument approaches in the simulator. He had very little actual instrument experience as B-1900 FO and he failed the training. I can easily imagine being new with the enormous learning challenges of your first FMC, and in your first jet (by the way, a Flight Attendant who is married to an Instructor there told me that lady new-hires receive much more extra help...compared to the guys). The problem he stated was instrument experience in weather, or at least flying the approaches.
But once trained at the famous or 'infamous' Gulfstream as FO, the promises of the training package must have been quite encouraging. Imagine the huge financial expense, and then finding out at your first jet airline that your limited flying hours, despite being in a twin-turbine (in mostly good weather) have not prepared you to fly a single-engine ILS, a regular 2-engine LOC or NDB approach, and combine these with some automation (how much?).
Many years ago, a guy at a regional airline I worked for had some problems in training. He had flown as King Air "FO" at a small charter company, and the guy he flew with most of the time was very selfish about sharing the flying: he seldom allowed this nice guy to fly departures or approaches (maybe the Captain only cared about his own actual instrument time, for use on a job application, but PIC is always PIC in most turbine aircraft). But he made it through the training ok and about two-three years later checked out as a Brasilia Captain at another company, then later went with a major east coast airline which was a fine company until being consumed by a dour 'yankee' airline.
When this new pilot was then hired by a different company with CRJs, the guy had some serious problems flying instrument approaches in the simulator. He had very little actual instrument experience as B-1900 FO and he failed the training. I can easily imagine being new with the enormous learning challenges of your first FMC, and in your first jet (by the way, a Flight Attendant who is married to an Instructor there told me that lady new-hires receive much more extra help...compared to the guys). The problem he stated was instrument experience in weather, or at least flying the approaches.
But once trained at the famous or 'infamous' Gulfstream as FO, the promises of the training package must have been quite encouraging. Imagine the huge financial expense, and then finding out at your first jet airline that your limited flying hours, despite being in a twin-turbine (in mostly good weather) have not prepared you to fly a single-engine ILS, a regular 2-engine LOC or NDB approach, and combine these with some automation (how much?).
Many years ago, a guy at a regional airline I worked for had some problems in training. He had flown as King Air "FO" at a small charter company, and the guy he flew with most of the time was very selfish about sharing the flying: he seldom allowed this nice guy to fly departures or approaches (maybe the Captain only cared about his own actual instrument time, for use on a job application, but PIC is always PIC in most turbine aircraft). But he made it through the training ok and about two-three years later checked out as a Brasilia Captain at another company, then later went with a major east coast airline which was a fine company until being consumed by a dour 'yankee' airline.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bob Tandy's place boozing with Darryl Hill
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a South African I am embarresed by this intiaive which is nothing more than a loop hole in order boost the ranks with "Afirmative Action" recruits.
The success rate for the SAA cadet scheme has been abismal and has cost the company an absolute fortune and has not delivered the numbers of non-white pilots that was hoped for.
Now when there are able bodied, experienced crew available in South Africa it has been decided to over look them and recruit via an easier cheaper channel than the cadet scheme and fast track these token pilots to Command simply to "balance the numbers". It is public knowledge that this and the cadet scheme are not open to white males - only to Blacks, Indians, Coloured male and female!
IT IS A SHAME THAT 12 YEARS AFTER THE FALL OF APARTHEID THAT THIS GOVERNMENT CHOOSES TO WALK THE SAME ROAD!
Whether or not this scheme has merit as a means of coping with a rapid exansion is not the question here, in the context of SAA it is simply reverse rasism!
The fact is that SAA is the only State Sponcered carrier in the world today that is shrinking while most other airlines are expanding - and its not due to lack of work or high fuel prices, but rather due to pathetic management.
While I respect many of my collegues at SAA I cannot and will not accept this as means to disqualify anyone due racial orientation from having a chance to fly for SAA.
But thats just my point of view.
AF
The success rate for the SAA cadet scheme has been abismal and has cost the company an absolute fortune and has not delivered the numbers of non-white pilots that was hoped for.
Now when there are able bodied, experienced crew available in South Africa it has been decided to over look them and recruit via an easier cheaper channel than the cadet scheme and fast track these token pilots to Command simply to "balance the numbers". It is public knowledge that this and the cadet scheme are not open to white males - only to Blacks, Indians, Coloured male and female!
IT IS A SHAME THAT 12 YEARS AFTER THE FALL OF APARTHEID THAT THIS GOVERNMENT CHOOSES TO WALK THE SAME ROAD!
Whether or not this scheme has merit as a means of coping with a rapid exansion is not the question here, in the context of SAA it is simply reverse rasism!
The fact is that SAA is the only State Sponcered carrier in the world today that is shrinking while most other airlines are expanding - and its not due to lack of work or high fuel prices, but rather due to pathetic management.
While I respect many of my collegues at SAA I cannot and will not accept this as means to disqualify anyone due racial orientation from having a chance to fly for SAA.
But thats just my point of view.
AF
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of CDG
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What Studi and Lucifer seem to (conveniently?) forget is that the great majority of airline pilots have had to self-sponsor their flight training, go the modular way and work their way up in the industry. Those who are "lucky" enough to benefit from some kind of sponsorship and then sometimes go straight on a heavy jet are but a tiny fraction of the overall professionnal pilot output of a country such as, say, the UK.
Therefore, quite apart from the finance side (how will they afford an even more expensive course if the MPL goes ahead), how would a typical modular, self-sponsored course be organised, bearing in mind that most of us have to train THEN find a first flying job - and that for a number of us, it will be on a turboprop
. What would be the point of training on a jet simulator for a good part of the MPL if you have no idea what you will be flying for your first job? Jet sims are only partly relevant to turboprop ops - and I know which type are actually harder to fly...
What about those that accumulate flight hours (and a great deal of useful experience) as Flight Instructors? Is their hard work to be discounted as not relevant to multi-pilot ops?
What about those that work in airline ops or dispatch for a few months (or years) while networking to get their lucky break - an invaluable experience for later on?
I'm not saying that one can't go on a heavy jet with 250 hrs and strive in that environment; a number of my friends have done it and are doing just fine. There are also a great many guys/gals who reach that goal having worked their way up and are great flyers - yet there are also failures in each system.
With a proportion of ex-fighter jocks in the airlines, does anybody really believe that these make lesser airline pilots - just because they haven't been trained in a MPL environment from the outset?
The industry as a whole will be all the poorer if it comes to favour a single type of training background; airlines strive (or should strive) on the diverse experience of their aircrew - a fact often overlooked in recruitment, and which may help in emergencies, when people trained in a like manner will tend to react in the same way, when thinking "out of the box" might be called for (cue Sioux City/Baghdad).
While cost may not be the issue (at least not initially), the airlines would like "ready-made" pilots straight out of the same mould, and to spend less time, effort and money on selection with a lower chance of getting it wrong. These are, unfortunately, conflicting requirements. In SAA's case (the starting point of this thread), the driving requirement is affirmative action, not to remedy some perceived deficiency in training (which is of a very good standard).
Cheers
Therefore, quite apart from the finance side (how will they afford an even more expensive course if the MPL goes ahead), how would a typical modular, self-sponsored course be organised, bearing in mind that most of us have to train THEN find a first flying job - and that for a number of us, it will be on a turboprop
. What would be the point of training on a jet simulator for a good part of the MPL if you have no idea what you will be flying for your first job? Jet sims are only partly relevant to turboprop ops - and I know which type are actually harder to fly...What about those that accumulate flight hours (and a great deal of useful experience) as Flight Instructors? Is their hard work to be discounted as not relevant to multi-pilot ops?
What about those that work in airline ops or dispatch for a few months (or years) while networking to get their lucky break - an invaluable experience for later on?
I'm not saying that one can't go on a heavy jet with 250 hrs and strive in that environment; a number of my friends have done it and are doing just fine. There are also a great many guys/gals who reach that goal having worked their way up and are great flyers - yet there are also failures in each system.
With a proportion of ex-fighter jocks in the airlines, does anybody really believe that these make lesser airline pilots - just because they haven't been trained in a MPL environment from the outset?
The industry as a whole will be all the poorer if it comes to favour a single type of training background; airlines strive (or should strive) on the diverse experience of their aircrew - a fact often overlooked in recruitment, and which may help in emergencies, when people trained in a like manner will tend to react in the same way, when thinking "out of the box" might be called for (cue Sioux City/Baghdad).
While cost may not be the issue (at least not initially), the airlines would like "ready-made" pilots straight out of the same mould, and to spend less time, effort and money on selection with a lower chance of getting it wrong. These are, unfortunately, conflicting requirements. In SAA's case (the starting point of this thread), the driving requirement is affirmative action, not to remedy some perceived deficiency in training (which is of a very good standard).
Cheers