Pay-to-fly wannabee damages Thomas Cook Airbus
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only comments I have ever heard from Captains flying with airlines who recruit 'cadets' are:
1. Most are great at flying the aeroplane by the 'numbers';
2. Some cannot be relied on in emergencies because they do not have the necessary depth of experience to be able to react if things don't go 'by the book;
3. If events described in (2) above occur the Captain quickly discovers it's a single pilot operation;
4. One pilot passed an A320 course with flying colours but just could not get to grips with landing the aircraft. In spite of sympathetic attempts by the training staff to correct this deficiency the trainee was failed.
The general impression from the above is that these candidates are 'switched on', but lack the background of knowledge and/or reactions to cope with certain situations that might be second nature to more experienced pilots.
It will be interesting to see if any 'incidents' occur in this respect with Ryanair now that they have discontinued the recruitment of experienced First Officers.
The cockpit gradient is large (from many points of view) and this in itself cannot be viewed as a beneficial state of affairs, particularly from a CRM perspective.
Some Captains have 'issues' with these candidates from a number of points of view: lack of experience, attitude, 'could be my son/daughter therefore nothing in common to talk about' leading to lack of synergy in the flight deck.
These are just my recollections of things that have been said to me over the years.
KR
FOK
PS: In a few instances I have asked for a demonstration of an exercise, but in the past I have learned more from watching the Captain and kept my mouth shut unless absolutely necessary in case of being considered inept. Sometimes asking questions can be seen as being an admission of a lack of knowledge and in spite of being told 'there's no such thing as a stupid question' I personally beg to differ in an airline training environment.
1. Most are great at flying the aeroplane by the 'numbers';
2. Some cannot be relied on in emergencies because they do not have the necessary depth of experience to be able to react if things don't go 'by the book;
3. If events described in (2) above occur the Captain quickly discovers it's a single pilot operation;
4. One pilot passed an A320 course with flying colours but just could not get to grips with landing the aircraft. In spite of sympathetic attempts by the training staff to correct this deficiency the trainee was failed.
The general impression from the above is that these candidates are 'switched on', but lack the background of knowledge and/or reactions to cope with certain situations that might be second nature to more experienced pilots.
It will be interesting to see if any 'incidents' occur in this respect with Ryanair now that they have discontinued the recruitment of experienced First Officers.
The cockpit gradient is large (from many points of view) and this in itself cannot be viewed as a beneficial state of affairs, particularly from a CRM perspective.
Some Captains have 'issues' with these candidates from a number of points of view: lack of experience, attitude, 'could be my son/daughter therefore nothing in common to talk about' leading to lack of synergy in the flight deck.
These are just my recollections of things that have been said to me over the years.
KR
FOK
PS: In a few instances I have asked for a demonstration of an exercise, but in the past I have learned more from watching the Captain and kept my mouth shut unless absolutely necessary in case of being considered inept. Sometimes asking questions can be seen as being an admission of a lack of knowledge and in spite of being told 'there's no such thing as a stupid question' I personally beg to differ in an airline training environment.
Last edited by FlyingOfficerKite; 7th Nov 2009 at 19:33.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK,Middle East, Central Asia, Africa...
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me too, although clearly the old 'follow-me-thru' QFI patter doesn't quite cut it with the FBW/SS. I find that a good way to demo the 'picture' is to let Bloggs watch an autoland, freezing where necessary and pointing out when the 'nose down' pitch starts to become effective.
It is a black art teaching landings in the Airbus and guys really should have a good grasp of the techniques before they get onto the real aircraft; it is, after all, what the sim is for!
It is a black art teaching landings in the Airbus and guys really should have a good grasp of the techniques before they get onto the real aircraft; it is, after all, what the sim is for!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: SW France
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well things are not that bad with the UK airline system, look at Air France - they pay all costs for their cadet ATPL training including type rating ... and we all know too well their saftey record.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot has to be said for working your way up via instructing, air taxi, turboprops. A lof of this guys 'deficiencies' would probably have been addressed, especially the approach to landing and flare. There are some very good cadets out there who start flying heavy metal with 200 hours and very competently as well but I think many of us would benefit from 'learning to walk before running'.
Sadly, paying your way through your very early career is seen as a shortcut to your ultimate dream and instructing/air taxi/turboprops is deemed as unnecessary!
Sadly, paying your way through your very early career is seen as a shortcut to your ultimate dream and instructing/air taxi/turboprops is deemed as unnecessary!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: SW France
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess it all comes down to cutting corners on both sides...
The newbee wanting a fast track route in as little time as possible.
and the airlines (although not all of them) wanting people in the RHS earning as minimal salary as they can get away with paying them whilst also not really wanting to invest in their training.
What did my wise teacher at school tell me about cutting corners?
The newbee wanting a fast track route in as little time as possible.
and the airlines (although not all of them) wanting people in the RHS earning as minimal salary as they can get away with paying them whilst also not really wanting to invest in their training.
What did my wise teacher at school tell me about cutting corners?
Last edited by juniour jetset; 8th Nov 2009 at 11:07.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stopping this practice?
The practice of airlines selling the RH seat to wannabes for "line trainning" will only stop when the authoritys do something about it or the bean counters find that they are paying more for aircraft insurance than they are making from the wannabes.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: some hotel
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Attitude
@ Mercenary Pilot
Thanks for posting the full AAIB report, the recent added posts made me first see and read it. Although the report clearly identifies several major errors in the operator's training and operations departments, you solely blaim the motivated, eager-to-learn F/O. Perhaps next time you can refrain from the insulting words in the title of your post. What attitude is that? Again, thanks for the report.
@Juniour Jetset
Are you the same person posting the latest two post under your name? As spot on as your last post is, as misplaced is your previous outing on UK versus France. There exists no system in either country, nor any other country for that matter. All nations have all sides of the quality spectrum represented. The governing element in distinguishing good from bad lies in the principal attitude towards safety.
@FlyingOfficerKite
I quite agree with your post, you seem to be very aware of the issue, yet acknowledge that you prefer to demonstrate your own lack of assertiveness when unclarities exist. May I remind you that that in fact undermines a proper cockpit hierarchy? Speaking up by all means is the more safe and constructive approach. Examine your attitude next time you decide to keep quiet.
To the emergency bit: hardly ANY operator trains F/Os in initial training, emergency handling skills other than the manufacturer prescribed manouevres or added company SOPs in OM B chapter 3. Reasoned and structured approaches to complex scenarios mostly are not covered until shortly before command training. That is the operator's fault, not the F/O's.
To the matter:
There is a big difference between ab initio training from zero time until jet rated and free market basic training with a bridge course. Ab initio, guides the trainee from scratch to finish under a given set of standards, laid out in a syllabus with CAA approval. Free market does not necessarily do that. It may vary per flight school and country.
The report clearly demonstrates the wide range of critique on the F/O's landing performance. My own experience with four commercial operators and five training organisations of which several highly respectable, confirm the AAIB report. That is; not all trainers possess the skills to adequatly debrief a trainee, let alone formulate a critique in written sentences. Trainer selection often leaves a lot to be desired and more often than not is based on seniority rather than competence.
The operations department and the training department of the operator in question, taught and condoned the application of a manoeuvre (TOGA 10), while not prescribed by the manufacturer under the given circumstances. It would be highly interesting to learn about the attitude and motivation that has put in place this misguidance.
If Kos is a special airport to a certain extent and the F/O's reputation preceeds his skills, the valid question is why did the captain not fly this leg? What motivation and attitude did he possess at the time?
The F/O on the other hand demonstrated skilled discipline in aircraft handling down to 50 feet. While undoubtedly busy, he may not have recognised the need for a go-around. His PNF, the captain, lacked the required assertiveness in this phase of the approach to correctly order the go-around. What attitude and motivation drove him?
I find it shallow and cheap to poke at a junior individual that lacks technical skill in a small, yet important, area of flight operations which was partially generated by poor training design standards and monitoring, while in fact he appears to be the only person that despite his set-backs kept on working to his goal in a motivated open-minded way. One-sided stabbing in his direction needlessly feeds the arrogance of the old-and-bold as well does it undermine the motivation of new candidates where it simultaneously sends out a signal of amateurism to people reading this thread.
Many times have I witnessed below standard performance on flight checks, both by senior captains and trainers, while listening to the 'good job' debriefings. The worst possible combination being that of a junior F/O linechecked with a senior captain by a senior trainer. Evidence to be found in numerous incidents and accidents in days gone by! Lessons learned: nil.
To all of you on your high horses: perhaps instead of condemning the newbies, you could consider passing on your technical expertise on a peer-to-peer basis if you are not a trainer. With the newbies knowledge level added to that you might even make up a good team. Spare me the 'they don't pay me to be a trainer' crap, if you consider writing that.
Arrogance has no place in multi pilot operations. Switched-on, eager-to-learn and motivated people do.
Thanks for posting the full AAIB report, the recent added posts made me first see and read it. Although the report clearly identifies several major errors in the operator's training and operations departments, you solely blaim the motivated, eager-to-learn F/O. Perhaps next time you can refrain from the insulting words in the title of your post. What attitude is that? Again, thanks for the report.
@Juniour Jetset
Are you the same person posting the latest two post under your name? As spot on as your last post is, as misplaced is your previous outing on UK versus France. There exists no system in either country, nor any other country for that matter. All nations have all sides of the quality spectrum represented. The governing element in distinguishing good from bad lies in the principal attitude towards safety.
@FlyingOfficerKite
I quite agree with your post, you seem to be very aware of the issue, yet acknowledge that you prefer to demonstrate your own lack of assertiveness when unclarities exist. May I remind you that that in fact undermines a proper cockpit hierarchy? Speaking up by all means is the more safe and constructive approach. Examine your attitude next time you decide to keep quiet.
To the emergency bit: hardly ANY operator trains F/Os in initial training, emergency handling skills other than the manufacturer prescribed manouevres or added company SOPs in OM B chapter 3. Reasoned and structured approaches to complex scenarios mostly are not covered until shortly before command training. That is the operator's fault, not the F/O's.
To the matter:
There is a big difference between ab initio training from zero time until jet rated and free market basic training with a bridge course. Ab initio, guides the trainee from scratch to finish under a given set of standards, laid out in a syllabus with CAA approval. Free market does not necessarily do that. It may vary per flight school and country.
The report clearly demonstrates the wide range of critique on the F/O's landing performance. My own experience with four commercial operators and five training organisations of which several highly respectable, confirm the AAIB report. That is; not all trainers possess the skills to adequatly debrief a trainee, let alone formulate a critique in written sentences. Trainer selection often leaves a lot to be desired and more often than not is based on seniority rather than competence.
The operations department and the training department of the operator in question, taught and condoned the application of a manoeuvre (TOGA 10), while not prescribed by the manufacturer under the given circumstances. It would be highly interesting to learn about the attitude and motivation that has put in place this misguidance.
If Kos is a special airport to a certain extent and the F/O's reputation preceeds his skills, the valid question is why did the captain not fly this leg? What motivation and attitude did he possess at the time?
The F/O on the other hand demonstrated skilled discipline in aircraft handling down to 50 feet. While undoubtedly busy, he may not have recognised the need for a go-around. His PNF, the captain, lacked the required assertiveness in this phase of the approach to correctly order the go-around. What attitude and motivation drove him?
I find it shallow and cheap to poke at a junior individual that lacks technical skill in a small, yet important, area of flight operations which was partially generated by poor training design standards and monitoring, while in fact he appears to be the only person that despite his set-backs kept on working to his goal in a motivated open-minded way. One-sided stabbing in his direction needlessly feeds the arrogance of the old-and-bold as well does it undermine the motivation of new candidates where it simultaneously sends out a signal of amateurism to people reading this thread.
Many times have I witnessed below standard performance on flight checks, both by senior captains and trainers, while listening to the 'good job' debriefings. The worst possible combination being that of a junior F/O linechecked with a senior captain by a senior trainer. Evidence to be found in numerous incidents and accidents in days gone by! Lessons learned: nil.
To all of you on your high horses: perhaps instead of condemning the newbies, you could consider passing on your technical expertise on a peer-to-peer basis if you are not a trainer. With the newbies knowledge level added to that you might even make up a good team. Spare me the 'they don't pay me to be a trainer' crap, if you consider writing that.
Arrogance has no place in multi pilot operations. Switched-on, eager-to-learn and motivated people do.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: SW France
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P23 - not quite sure what you mean. But yes the two posts on this thread are me. I was pointing out that Air France invest in all juniour pilots coming into AF through their own cadet scheme - unless I'm mistaken?? and the bit about the safety record was me having a cheap jibe at the company. It's a bit of an ongoing joke in our household as my Mrs works for them. She's a Frenchie and I'm a Brit.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Manchester
Age: 63
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting point on training a few posts earlier about Training Capts being reluctant to demonstate, in this case how to do a landing. Indeed they are probably afraid in case they make a hash of it!
In my own experience, it had always been my practice to make notes during the debrief following the Sim....especially useful in preperation for those coming later when one has had chance to let some things slip the mind. When I went to a new company and commenced to do the same thing I was stopped by THE senior Company trainer who said "I didn't like people taking notes after coming off the Sim"!!!!! It didn't stop me writing it up later but as someone said that is the hallmark of some one who is not confident of his training and frightened of being re-quoted at a later date!!!!
In my own experience, it had always been my practice to make notes during the debrief following the Sim....especially useful in preperation for those coming later when one has had chance to let some things slip the mind. When I went to a new company and commenced to do the same thing I was stopped by THE senior Company trainer who said "I didn't like people taking notes after coming off the Sim"!!!!! It didn't stop me writing it up later but as someone said that is the hallmark of some one who is not confident of his training and frightened of being re-quoted at a later date!!!!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed.
There was nothing wrong, in my opinion, with the 700 hr CPL/1,500 hr ATPL route.
You learnt your trade, one way or another, and generally gained substantial experience before being considered for an airline position.
200 hours in the 'old' days would be little more than a PPL/Night/IMC with, perhaps, a still wet AFI rating.
All the current system seems to prove is that you can teach bright young people how to operate a modern jet and enable the low-cost carriers to gain substantial financial benefits in the process.
I don't see BA and the like pursuing this line of training which, unfortunately, is probably one reason why they are suffering financially at the moment?
As John Ruskin famously stated: 'There is nothing in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and he who considers price only is that man's lawful prey'.
KR
FOK
There was nothing wrong, in my opinion, with the 700 hr CPL/1,500 hr ATPL route.
You learnt your trade, one way or another, and generally gained substantial experience before being considered for an airline position.
200 hours in the 'old' days would be little more than a PPL/Night/IMC with, perhaps, a still wet AFI rating.
All the current system seems to prove is that you can teach bright young people how to operate a modern jet and enable the low-cost carriers to gain substantial financial benefits in the process.
I don't see BA and the like pursuing this line of training which, unfortunately, is probably one reason why they are suffering financially at the moment?
As John Ruskin famously stated: 'There is nothing in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and he who considers price only is that man's lawful prey'.
KR
FOK
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: My
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paying for a Position?
While I sympathise with the individual to whom this thread is related, I also can't help thinking that people are missing the point of the intitial training.
what does ATP stand for again? Airline Transport Pilot. I think alot of todays courses are much changed from those of even 10 years ago. The focus has shifted from those single pilot ops to those of multi pilots ops. No more so than the MPL offered at OAA. Now I'm not saying this is better or a good thing. I'm mreely saying that people are being trained in a different way for a different goal and not necessarily being trained to fly turboprops. I for one have gone through selection for the ATPL, along with Selection for the Airline with which I was a Cadet. Granted, these weren't the most thorough tests I ahve caried out in aviation, but it's a lot tougher than just paying the money for your hours. OAA have the integrated APP which is another step along the evolution ladder (so do many other FTO's). Surely the CAA's purpose is to enforce standards to all test and therefore give everyone in the industry the same basic level of skill on completing an examination. Be that CPL, IR or TR. I think today's courses are geared to making FO's and not single pilot operation students.
The Airline that accepted me stated quite openly, that OAA produced FO's and FTE (for example) produced good CPL students. This in itself speaks volumes. I paid the money for the licence to be an FO not to fly twin piston aircraft. Therefore I wanted to come out the other end of th sausage factory as close to an FO as possible. I don't necessarily believe that thousands of hours in turbines/turbo props would be the better way to go. Don't get me wrong, my hands on flying skills would undoubtedly be better but would my mindset be correct?
I know my comments will be taken as arrogance or lack of experience but I'm not 18 and I'm not new to the aviation industry, however I am new to the right hand seat and new to an airline.
I think we all need to understand that there is not one easy way to get to the end result. If there was, then everyone would be doing it and we'd all be pperfect and there would be no need for PPRUNE !!!
I think the issues raised by the AAIB and the company in question have been identified and the reent summers occurances with cadets has proved this. No longer is being chopped a thing that never happens. One cadet from each fleet was removed from training on or before the line check.
what does ATP stand for again? Airline Transport Pilot. I think alot of todays courses are much changed from those of even 10 years ago. The focus has shifted from those single pilot ops to those of multi pilots ops. No more so than the MPL offered at OAA. Now I'm not saying this is better or a good thing. I'm mreely saying that people are being trained in a different way for a different goal and not necessarily being trained to fly turboprops. I for one have gone through selection for the ATPL, along with Selection for the Airline with which I was a Cadet. Granted, these weren't the most thorough tests I ahve caried out in aviation, but it's a lot tougher than just paying the money for your hours. OAA have the integrated APP which is another step along the evolution ladder (so do many other FTO's). Surely the CAA's purpose is to enforce standards to all test and therefore give everyone in the industry the same basic level of skill on completing an examination. Be that CPL, IR or TR. I think today's courses are geared to making FO's and not single pilot operation students.
The Airline that accepted me stated quite openly, that OAA produced FO's and FTE (for example) produced good CPL students. This in itself speaks volumes. I paid the money for the licence to be an FO not to fly twin piston aircraft. Therefore I wanted to come out the other end of th sausage factory as close to an FO as possible. I don't necessarily believe that thousands of hours in turbines/turbo props would be the better way to go. Don't get me wrong, my hands on flying skills would undoubtedly be better but would my mindset be correct?
I know my comments will be taken as arrogance or lack of experience but I'm not 18 and I'm not new to the aviation industry, however I am new to the right hand seat and new to an airline.
I think we all need to understand that there is not one easy way to get to the end result. If there was, then everyone would be doing it and we'd all be pperfect and there would be no need for PPRUNE !!!
I think the issues raised by the AAIB and the company in question have been identified and the reent summers occurances with cadets has proved this. No longer is being chopped a thing that never happens. One cadet from each fleet was removed from training on or before the line check.
Plumbum Pendular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"2. Some cannot be relied on in emergencies because they do not have the necessary depth of experience to be able to react if things don't go 'by the book;"
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: SW France
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After reading the AAIB report and in an attempt of being objective, I can't help but think that the pilot in question failed in his task at hand , but also that the airline failed him with their training system. i.e a bit of a balls up on both parties.
Does anyone know if he still works for the airline and the reprecussions that he experienced post event?
and how would another airline view him for future empolyment?
Does anyone know if he still works for the airline and the reprecussions that he experienced post event?
and how would another airline view him for future empolyment?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A full ATPL and 1500 hours. The difference is the "cadet" won't be there.
There is no shortage of pilots. No shortage of experience. Just an abudance of people who will trip over one another to work for nothing, supposedly with the illusion they were trained to bypass the normal hurdles. The employers encourage this as the next best thing to unscrewing the right hand seat and throwing it away. The regulator won't allow them to do the latter, but it is content (for the time being) to allow the former. If employers are required to source from a restricted pool, they have to pay a higher market rate. If they can create an artificial surplus (of no experience pilots) that pressure disappears.
I have no difficulty with whatever additional training and courses are deemed necessary to achieve the requisite for Airline transport flying, but whatever is learned in the process of amassing 1500 hours and an ATPL, can't but assist and benefit in the normal learning process either. This is a cost driven nonsense and it is high time it was stopped and properly regulated.
There is no shortage of pilots. No shortage of experience. Just an abudance of people who will trip over one another to work for nothing, supposedly with the illusion they were trained to bypass the normal hurdles. The employers encourage this as the next best thing to unscrewing the right hand seat and throwing it away. The regulator won't allow them to do the latter, but it is content (for the time being) to allow the former. If employers are required to source from a restricted pool, they have to pay a higher market rate. If they can create an artificial surplus (of no experience pilots) that pressure disappears.
I have no difficulty with whatever additional training and courses are deemed necessary to achieve the requisite for Airline transport flying, but whatever is learned in the process of amassing 1500 hours and an ATPL, can't but assist and benefit in the normal learning process either. This is a cost driven nonsense and it is high time it was stopped and properly regulated.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P-T
With the greatest respect I think you have missed the point too.
It's not a question of single pilot or multi-pilot - just a lack of training and experience in general.
I can't think of many instances in life where people are put in such a demanding environment with so little experience - commercial drivers work their way up through the system. I can't imagine many operators placing an artic or a brand new coach in the hands of someone just out of training?!
In most careers you 'work your way up' and don't expect to be in the most complex, technologically advanced machine straight out of training.
There may be exceptions to the rule, but to plan for this situation seems incredible if you stand back and review the process 'from the outside'.
Just supposing a Captain were to become incapacitated with a fresh F/O just out of training with 200 hours - what chance of guaranteeing a successful outcome? Maybe not even with an experienced F/O but more likely.
It's a balance of risk. Perhaps the element of risk is shifting just that little bit too far?
KR
FOK
With the greatest respect I think you have missed the point too.
It's not a question of single pilot or multi-pilot - just a lack of training and experience in general.
I can't think of many instances in life where people are put in such a demanding environment with so little experience - commercial drivers work their way up through the system. I can't imagine many operators placing an artic or a brand new coach in the hands of someone just out of training?!
In most careers you 'work your way up' and don't expect to be in the most complex, technologically advanced machine straight out of training.
There may be exceptions to the rule, but to plan for this situation seems incredible if you stand back and review the process 'from the outside'.
Just supposing a Captain were to become incapacitated with a fresh F/O just out of training with 200 hours - what chance of guaranteeing a successful outcome? Maybe not even with an experienced F/O but more likely.
It's a balance of risk. Perhaps the element of risk is shifting just that little bit too far?
KR
FOK
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: essex
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bealzebub
This is a cost driven nonsense and it is high time it was stopped and properly regulated.
At the risk of repeating myself (several times) the blame lies with the CAA.
A TRTO should be used by airlines for training its own recruits. I don't believe the original intention was to enable airlines to tout for business on the streets.
If this distinction were made by the CAA, airlines would have to set themselves up as a CTC-type organization with all the associated expenses.
At the risk of repeating myself (several times) the blame lies with the CAA.
A TRTO should be used by airlines for training its own recruits. I don't believe the original intention was to enable airlines to tout for business on the streets.
If this distinction were made by the CAA, airlines would have to set themselves up as a CTC-type organization with all the associated expenses.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a nice house
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't read the whole of this thread, but it seems that people are saying that low houred FOs are not up to the required standard.
If that is the case, should we not be up in arms against those who a) selected them and b) employed them?
Any pilot new to a company will be undergoing a sim check and line training.
Perhaps there is a problem higher up in the company.
Perhaps the Training Captains are giving the trainee the benefit of the doubt when they shouldn't.
Perhaps the Training Captains are not adhering to the strict standards required.
Perhaps Training Captains are not intervening when they should.
Every airline has a system in place so that pilots are correctly trained for that airline's operation. The CAA oversee this. Therefore it would seem that in fact there is a problem with Training Captains and the CAA?
Just a thought....
If that is the case, should we not be up in arms against those who a) selected them and b) employed them?
Any pilot new to a company will be undergoing a sim check and line training.
Perhaps there is a problem higher up in the company.
Perhaps the Training Captains are giving the trainee the benefit of the doubt when they shouldn't.
Perhaps the Training Captains are not adhering to the strict standards required.
Perhaps Training Captains are not intervening when they should.
Every airline has a system in place so that pilots are correctly trained for that airline's operation. The CAA oversee this. Therefore it would seem that in fact there is a problem with Training Captains and the CAA?
Just a thought....
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've forgotten the history of why it was deemed acceptable to reduce the requisite number of hours for a CPL from 700 hrs to 200 hrs.
Whether the airlines 'saw the JAA coming' or whether this situation was never envisaged due to the (unexpected) rise in the volume of low cost air transport I suppose no one really knows.
It is hardly surprising that the low cost operators have taken advantage of the situation, just as they have by exploiting CAP 371.
It would be interesting to hear a reasoned argument for improved air safety against the reduction in average flying hours that most airlines must now incur. That is a sensible, balanced argument as opposed to hype and spin from 'notables' and the PR Department.
Funny how when it comes to flying hours the airlines go for the lowest common denominator, but when it comes to working hours they go for the highest.
KR
FOK
Whether the airlines 'saw the JAA coming' or whether this situation was never envisaged due to the (unexpected) rise in the volume of low cost air transport I suppose no one really knows.
It is hardly surprising that the low cost operators have taken advantage of the situation, just as they have by exploiting CAP 371.
It would be interesting to hear a reasoned argument for improved air safety against the reduction in average flying hours that most airlines must now incur. That is a sensible, balanced argument as opposed to hype and spin from 'notables' and the PR Department.
Funny how when it comes to flying hours the airlines go for the lowest common denominator, but when it comes to working hours they go for the highest.
KR
FOK