Pay-to-fly wannabee damages Thomas Cook Airbus

[Mercenary Pilot]

The aircraft landed heavily on Runway 32 at Kos Airport, causing substantial damage to the aircraft’s main landing gear. It touched down with a high rate of descent, following a late initiation of the flare by the co‑pilot, who was undergoing line training. Three safety recommendations are made.

Late in 2006, he attended selection tests for a ‘Cadetship’ programme offered by a commercial flying training organisation (FTO), in conjunction with the operator (of G-DHJZ) the tests were run by the training organisation. Under the scheme, a cadet would pay for a ‘Jet Bridge’ course, type rating and 150 hours of line flying with the airline. Thereafter, there would be a possibility of employment should the airline concerned have any vacancies. The commercial training organisation paid the airline for its involvement in the training, enabling the airline to generate revenue through their training department,

And the most interesting part of the report (all underlining by me)....

For consideration for the cadetship programme, the co‑pilot underwent psychometric, literacy and numeracy tests, and an interview, before his flying skills were assessed in a Boeing 737 simulator. Although he performed well in the non-flying aspects of the assessment, his performance in the simulator did not meet the required standard. However, he was offered a further assessment in an A320 simulator with a senior training captain employed by the training organisation. He passed this second assessment and was offered a place on the scheme. His previous commercial flying training record was not reviewed.

Well like many of us have been warning, these pay to fly schemes are an accident waiting to happen and fortunatly this time it was just the aircraft that was damaged.

AAIB Full Report here

[RSFTO]

we should also remind ourselves that this pay-to-fly wannabees damage also our pilot profession in terms of our salary.

I am happy this has happened and I hope they stop these programs soon.

[captplaystation]

I think the main point here is not that his second "assessment" was sucessful, although that does tend to ring alarm bells.
From what I have read there was a fairly serious breakdown in communicating his previous difficulties to the next poor LTC along the line.
Given his fairly poor performance up to that point that is unfortunate to say the least, but could equally have occured were he a sponsored candidate. The biggest failure identified here is the airlines inability to communicate internally, which hopefully has been corrected.
In my experience in Ryanair, I have to say I have generally been fairly impressed with the performance of the self-payers.
As I always used to argue on my own behalf as a self improver in the dim and distant past, using your own dosh certainly removes the question of motivation from the argument, it is not in doubt in these cases.
Generally ,given their low aviation experience level, most of these guys do very very well when strapped into the front of a two crew jet with just a few hundred hours experience.
Whilst I agree with your scepticism about his acceptance into the scheme I don't think it is fair or justified to tar all self funders with the same brush.
Regretably for them and the industry in general, saving/making money off new recruits has taken precedence over selection purely on merit. Having said that, in the past "merit" in many countries/cultures often meant having a relative/family friend etc putting a word in so perhaps we have merely replaced one wrong with another

[parabellum]

Not unfair to wonder if, perhaps, say 1500hours in the lighter, non jet, General Aviation scenario first might have given him/her a natural instinct on when to flare?

[Dani]

If he was under supervision as a trainee, the full responsability of the safe outcome of a flight lays within the hand of the instructor. Hard landings always can happen, especially on those Greek short runways. On a FBW thinggy it's a different problem, but as an experienced instructor you see a hard landing coming.

Dani

[Dani]

Reading it now for the second time, this clearly wasn't a cadet problem but the company had a wrong Go-Around procedure. You eighter go around or you don't. Adding TOGA thrust and land just thereafter doesn't seem a very safe technique after all!

Dani

[763 jock]

Wasn't a cadet problem? I assume you are joking!

[CABUS]

Dani, I think you are referring to the TOGA 10 manouevure, this is to arrest the ROD after a bounce. Well thats what my thoughts were on it. I also think its unfair for all pilots to assume all Cadets are below par.

[ChocksAwayUK]

TOGA 10 is a late go around (i.e. after a balked landing) where pitch attitude is just 10 degrees in order to prevent a tailstrike - as I understand it. The commander initiated this then changed his mind when the Take Off config. warning chimed - don't know the intricacies of why that happened.

[Gary Lager]

Not all cadets are below par - this person wasn't a 'cadet' in the sense that an airline selected him for performance/aptitude surpassing that of his peers, but that he was 'selected' by having a great big open cheque book.

His performance did not meet the required standard to justify the FTO taking tens of thousands of pounds of his money, so they put him in a different, easier to fly aircraft (I have flown both) being assessed by someone whose wages depended not on paying passengers but on people like this candidate passing assessments. Funny old thing, he passed. What if hadn't passed second time? Another try in the sim? OK, no problem, BTW that'll be another grand please.

Yes the ultimate safety of an aircraft is in the hands of the instructor, but that does reasonable assume that the trainee is qualified and competent enough to cope with the detail.

Some candidates on these pay-to-fly schemes may well have the above-average aptitude to have passed the old-fashioned competitve 'cadet' selection criteria. All well and good. Some people are not hotshots or capable of flying in the RHS of a jet airliner at 250hrs...but give them a few years instructing, or on slower, lighter aircraft and they may well reach an appropriate level of capability. Fine. But if the entry standards to the RHS of an airliner are relaxed to allow anyone with enough cash to 'have a go' then this will continue to be the inevitable result.

I wonder who the 'training organisation' is? Let me guess. Could it be the same one as currently introducing a scheme with the same entry 'standards' but only giving 6 months flying a year? Let's see how that works out...

Edited to say I just noticed in the report that yes, of course, it was CTC.

[FlexibleResponse]

It's kind of interesting that airlines will resort to teaching inexperienced and poorly skilled aviators to fly multi-million dollar airliner aircraft loaded with fare-paying passengers, just because the aforementioned aviators are paying the airline for the privilege. Sounds very much like a conflict of interest when public safety is considered?

One wonders what the airline insurance folks think of this practice?

[Phileas Fogg]

A lot of these 'wannabees' are dead-set against paying for an assessment.

Many have an attitude that it's their money that they are spending so why should they be assessed, they expect (demand) to be readily accepted for the type rating and flying simply because they've got the money available.

[yokebearer]

This is BS. Pilots paying to fly airliners is just taking it a bit too far. Should be outlawed. Destroys the career/profession.

[Nil further]

One of the wunderkinder also damaged an EZY Airbus , think it was a ground incident though.

[Gary Lager]

You're preaching to the converted, yokebearer. If you fancy a fight though go and see how they react to that on the 'Wannabes' forum....

[dontdoit]

Is he still there?

[lederhosen]

The report should be required reading for training captains. As an aside Kos is normally a great place for a visual approach.

[CABUS]

From what I understand the Cadet is only paying for the TR and actually recieves a basic wage and allowances until the 150hrs is complete, so they are not actually paying to fly the aircraft just following the path that has been layed out by others and pay for the TR, which is a shame I know.

[Honiley]

The 'Stable' call at 500ft AAL was an interesting one to make...especially at about 160ft AAL "THREE WHITES AND ONE RED...CORRECTING"

[Gary Lager]

Hmmm...what difference (in feet altitude) do you think there is between 2 reds and 1 red, at 160 ft agl? I calculate about 16ft at most. Maintaining that displacement to touchdown (i.e. not correcting) will land you about 320ft/100m long. Well within the touchdown zone, not the end of the world. However, chasing the PAPIs below 200ft is a good way to destabilise a previously stable approach - they are very sensitive...3reds, no 2 reds, no 3 whites, no 3 reds again crunch oops.

Seriously, would you always go around anytime you see anything other than 2R2W? I think we're missing the point here. Problem was this chap should not have been allowed to fly pax until he could land consistently safely, with hindsight this seems not to have been achieved, a factor in which could likely have been the fact that he was a 'customer' and a source of revenue for the airline, and not subject to the usual objectively high standards of selection.

I'm not having a go at TCX, my airline exploits this particular distasteful 'revenue stream' as well. We also have 'proper' cadets, selected for merit and retained on the basis of performance...some of whom have recently been stitched up and dumped by the company who realise that Tesco Value Buy-One-Get-One-Free Pilots are cheaper and that management of risk/avoidance of bent aeroplanes or worse is a problem only for the training department/line captains, not for those who bank the cheques.