FAA Head Concerned With Cockpit Experience

[Atreyu]

This thread seems to have alot of contributors who are substituting hours for experience, you can compare two commanders of 5000 hours, and it can be night and day between what each has done with said hours.

I was once told ''the more you can see from that seat (RHS), the better you'll be in this seat (LHS)''

Couldn't agree more...

Atreyu

[hauxdeu]

behind the cockpit door

All the ruminataing by the Randy Babbits, Frank Lorenzos and Glenn Tiltons of the world amount to nothing once we close the cockpit door. What really matters is how the Captain runs the show.

Is he humble enough to admit that he can learn something from EVERY F/O, even a 24 yr old Barbie doll quota hire? Because, even she may notice something the old Captain just missed, and one day, it may be critical real time info that could save the day. (Sorry, I have no examples here...)

On the flip side, are the F/Os willing to learn from their Captains, or more interested in reporting what should be confidential information to their respective Thought Police if there is some real (or imagined) minor "deviation" from some obscure SOP??? (Sorry, I absolutely can't think of any examples here, either..)

Having an excellent command style means keeping the cockpit relaxed enough so the new guys can learn in freedom...freedom from the suits OUTSIDE the cockpit door.

[Will Fraser]

The restoration of Command authority is a critical step as the Industry shrinks, adjusts, and redefines. The loss of Pilot authority was regretful as long as it happened in the boardroom, but the last battle is taking shape as economic, political, and resource conflicts define the new Industry. In a way, this is a very opportune time for pilots to regain, and embellish their standing, fiscal stature, and Cockpit authority. Round trip Florida to California for 170 small ones can't last; bargaining power has been fractured, and the time to drive the system as well as the aircraft is at hand. Don't dally.

Will

[galaxy flyer]

One of the first Captains I flew with, Leo Page, numero Uno at BOSFO EAL, introduced himself to me, a probie F/E, and, "Speak up if see anything you don't like, we can all die together from our mistakes." Enuf said!

GF

[have another coffee]

I am amazed and worried how airline business has changed the last few years. In general we operate far from any boundary in the airline business. Only through training and sharing experience we can learn where the boundaries of operating an aircraft in the real world are (own limits and limits of aircraft/systems/atc/weather etc). In the current way training of new pilots AND recurrent training are organized we do not realize any more where these boundaries are nor can we detect how quickly we are approaching a boundary. Sim rides are stamped with legal requirements instead of interactive and constructive learning, newbe pilots follow a strict program (=minimum cost) without gaining the experience to approach or cross a limit. The way companies run their operation also does not leave many room for input of your own. For almost every decision in the process there is department or rule dictating the way forward. In combination with tight schedules (and other time factors) it does not leave much room to think and realize what we are doing once we are in the flow putting signatures on every piece of paper prepared by others.
It really makes me feel sometimes as a bus driver without the realization of running a potantial very dangerous business if not everyone is on top of it knows exactly what he/she is doing. Be it either from experience or proper training fit for the airline operation we are conducting everyday.
I think it will need some research to define the exact problem before a proper solution will be found (if there really is a problem). I personally will feel better with an (ab initio) co-pilot next to me if I know he/she is trained to the limits and has already learned to detect an upcomming problem before it is really there. Simply the ability to recognize the feeling something is wrong, the right knowledge and experience, how little this may be.

[jetjackel]

Ct. Yankee.

I remember that program at UAL. Didn't all "cadets" go into the engineers seat for a time?

[jetjackel]

Heuxdeu

Excellent description. Reckon that about sums up the mind set necessary.

[Ct.Yankee]

FAA's experience statements?

Jet J

Yes, with the exception of the airlines that were flying, Martins, Convairs or DC3's and the pilot hires that were less that twenty-one years old, all started in the backseat or middle seat as Second Officers. (ALPA didn't like the FE title) I'm sure there were some exceptions.
In most cases we had the progression of anywhere from five to twenty years experience prior to "checking out" as Captain.

[AirRabbit]

Of course, anyone would rather see those entering the airline business have a history of competent time “in the seat” with excellent pilot skills, a willingness to learn what they don't know, and so forth. And, there are some who really believe that there are an adequate number of those types hiding in the weeds, simply awaiting the airlines to advertise that they need pilots with exactly those skills. Also, there are those who believe that there are “seasoned, veteran pilots” currently flying for the regional airlines who will be ready, willing, and able, to move to the national or major airlines in numbers more than sufficient to cover those who are going fill the vacancies due to retirements and an increase in the aircraft in service over the next 10 – 12 years. Of course, its always possible that these folks are correct - and then again, maybe they're not correct.

There are those who believe that with the number of aircraft that the manufacturers are gearing up to deliver over the next dozen years, or so, (and both Boeing and Airbus are predicting record breaking deliveries each month throughout at least the first portion of that period) and the number of pilots who will reach retirement (at least in the US) in that same period, the numbers of pilots that will be needed (again, in the US) will be approximately 400 per month, each month throughout that period. Personally, I doubt that the “weeds” are hiding that number of pilot candidates with the desired qualifications. IF that is true, one of 3 things will be required: 1) the airlines will have to hire those with minimum qualifications (i.e., 200 – 250 hours, an instrument rating, and a commercial certificate); 2) the airlines will have to get into the ab-initio training business; or 3) there will be companies who will train ab-initio pilots – in a manner similar to the MPL methodologies currently being incorporated around the globe – to provide acceptable first officer candidates. The questions then become, what kind of first officers are needed when a good share of the captains are going to have just barely more flight time than is required for the ATP? … and perhaps most importantly, what method will provide the best candidate (combining knowledge, skill, and experience) for the cost involved? I'd submit that the options are not unlimited.

And ... as far as Mr. Babbitt is concerned, I think that passing judgment on what he is going to do or is considering doing is a bit premature. Shouldn't we wait until he's been at the controls for a bit more than 90 days at least?

[M80]

Originally Posted by Traveler93

The multi-thousand hour GA pilot (who paid 15KUS$ for is three week TR) or the MPLr (who was trained during 12 to 16 months and dished out 50KUS$)?

I know it is a controvercial question but I leave it to you anyway.

It's not a controversial question. Especially when you pose the question in such a biased manner. The alternative to an MPL or low hour CPL ME/IR low houred pilot isn't a 1500 hour GA pilot flying a C172 in circuits, as you would have us believe. There exist many pilots who fly charter in the bigger piston twins or turbo props looking to continue their careers in airlines via the RHS. You're then talking about 1000-3000 hour pilots who've been exposed to busy airspace, poor weather, storms, and in general being the only pilot on board. I can promise you that these pilots, having done the hard time, will also be eager and keen, grateful for the step up and have some understanding and respect for the responsibilities that lie on the shoulders of the guy in the LHS.

[MungoP]

M80
You're then talking about 1000-3000 hour pilots who've been exposed to busy airspace, poor weather, storms, and in general being the only pilot on board. I can promise you that these pilots, having done the hard time, will also be eager and keen, grateful for the step up and have some understanding and respect for the responsibilities that lie on the shoulders of the guy in the LHS.

Spot on... those are the people I want next to me on a dark and stormy night...with no second officer program in place the regionals should be looking at these guys to fill the right hand seat... but of course they don't want to pay them... because the SLF down the back want to fly for the price of a bus ticket and so the free market kicks in... Only if the FAA/CAA revise their requirements for crew experience and force the airlines to conform will anything get done. The newbees think it's all about flying the plane.. it's not... it's about surviving while flying the plane.

[AirRabbit]

Originally Posted by M80

It's not a controversial question. Especially when you pose the question in such a biased manner. The alternative to an MPL or low hour CPL ME/IR low houred pilot isn't a 1500 hour GA pilot flying a C172 in circuits, as you would have us believe. There exist many pilots who fly charter in the bigger piston twins or turbo props looking to continue their careers in airlines via the RHS. You're then talking about 1000-3000 hour pilots who've been exposed to busy airspace, poor weather, storms, and in general being the only pilot on board. I can promise you that these pilots, having done the hard time, will also be eager and keen, grateful for the step up and have some understanding and respect for the responsibilities that lie on the shoulders of the guy in the LHS.

Originally Posted by MungoP

Spot on... those are the people I want next to me on a dark and stormy night...with no second officer program in place the regionals should be looking at these guys to fill the right hand seat... but of course they don't want to pay them... because the SLF down the back want to fly for the price of a bus ticket and so the free market kicks in... Only if the FAA/CAA revise their requirements for crew experience and force the airlines to conform will anything get done. The newbees think it's all about flying the plane.. it's not... it's about surviving while flying the plane.

There is little doubt there ARE these folks out there - and they would likely make for excellent airline entry first officers ... but are there enough of them to supply 400 pilots a month, every month, for 12 years? And that figure is just for the US ... Europe is likely to require somethig similiar - and the Pacific Rim ... at least the same ... perhaps more. And IF (you make the call) those numbers cannot be supplied by whatever source you name, from where are those pilots going to come?

[NoJoke]

AirRabbit

Where did you get those figures from. Was it some hare today goon tomorrow operation. I wish that it might be true cos my last 10 years might be good ones.

[AirRabbit]

Hey NoJoke

Here's a link: WATS Pilot Conference

Once loaded, scroll down to item number 3 ... I think you have to register to be able to see the presentations, but Kit Darby's presentation might brighten your day ... please note ... I said might! Good luck.

[MungoP]

AirRabbit... we would ALL like it if those numbers prove accurate but even if they are we still can't allow inexperience in the right hand seat to put lives at risk... If an airline can't recruit suitable experience for the F/O position that's their problem... either they offer better T&Cs or they'd better start growing their own crop of future F/Os by putting second officer/junior F/Os whatever you want to call them into the jump seat and letting them watch while tough decisions are being made at the front... they can witness many hours and trips that will demonstrate the good, the bad and the ugly CRM and see a few winters of survival flying before pretending to be pilots.
With so many newbees prepared to fly for food it would cost the airlines little more than the price of the extra useful load and a few hotel room costs... a small price to pay to arrest a decline in public confidence in the regionals.

[cessnapuppy]

Trend towards 'Unflying'

The big problem, it seems to me ( regardless of experience) is the trend toward 'unflying' pilots - Primarily highlighted by Airbus and their vaunted fly-by-wire schemes but also many airlines SOP's not only demanding automation for just about everything, but penalizing any hand flying as well.

Look at some of recent latest accidents - where the right action is taken- but too late. Many involve a frantic flipping through checklists, manuals, rebooting systems, trying to source flashing lights.. all but what should be instinctive maintaining attitude,speed and altitude.

I understand the wish for automation, it reduces fatigue and over 100's of miles of flying the incremental handling differences at cruise even at 1/2 of a percent in increased efficiency, translate to bottom line savings. But longer periods of -and a greater degree of of 'operator disconnection' with the aircraft make it more difficult for the pilot to 'reconnect' when the aircraft gets startled and throws the controls back in his lap with a 'here, YOU fly it!'; (along with one or more hamstrung 'law modes' which may or may not be immediately obvious in a turbulent situation).

The pilot 'monitoring the systems' means you dont have a pilot anymore, and repetitively watching an input stream for hiccups is a job for a computer -not a human! What I'd like to see is a total flip of the equation, where instead of extended auto-pilot mode, you have instead, 'auto-captain' /'AP monitor' mode.

The pilot is hand flying the plane, but the AP-System, is monitoring the inputs and if they vary from what the AP would have done, give feedback with a physical buzz and an auditory tone (like a force feedback joystick on a game).

This basically 'teaches' the pilot to 'fly like an autopilot', ie. very fuel efficient. This also means that there is no 'hand over' - that deadzone when control is passed from one system to another, the pilot is ALREADY flying the plane!

*

[AirRabbit]

Originally Posted by MungoP

...we would ALL like it if those numbers prove accurate but even if they are we still can't allow inexperience in the right hand seat to put lives at risk... If an airline can't recruit suitable experience for the F/O position that's their problem... either they offer better T&Cs or they'd better start growing their own crop of future F/Os by putting second officer/junior F/Os whatever you want to call them into the jump seat and letting them watch while tough decisions are being made at the front... they can witness many hours and trips that will demonstrate the good, the bad and the ugly CRM and see a few winters of survival flying before pretending to be pilots.
With so many newbees prepared to fly for food it would cost the airlines little more than the price of the extra useful load and a few hotel room costs... a small price to pay to arrest a decline in public confidence in the regionals.

Don't shoot the messenger ... but, I'm having trouble understanding just who's problem you think we're describing ... because I don't think the airlines are going to think its their problem. The requirements right now (at least in the US) for the right seat in an airline job is to have a commercial, multi-engine certificate with an instrument rating. That equates to between 190 and 250 hours of flight time - including training ... and, also, the pilots must pass the relevant airline training program. There is legislation pending in the US Congress that might require that right seater to have an ATP (which requires 1500 hours and includes the equivalent of an instrument rating) ... and I would presume that it would also require a multi-engine rating, but that wasn't specifically described, according to my sources. I also heard that some have suggested that legislation be modified to include an alternative of requiring airline "new hires" to be a graduate of an accredited school that also has a flight training program.

What you're proposing may sound logical, but, at least in the US, it would require a rather major over-haul of some significant rules and regulations (read that as "a snowball's chance in a very hot place").

You probably should know that Boeing has completed a couple of Beta tests on the ICAO program known as MPL. While the Boeing test graduates took considerably more time than originally described in the ICAO MPL descriptions (ICAO describes something like 250 hours of training time and the Beta Tests took more on the order of 380 - 400 hours), the results are, nonetheless, apparently quite impressive. Until someone comes along with something more logical, less expensive, that provides pilots with better training and/or more experience ... I'd submit that the MPL approach is likely to have the inside track.

[M80]

Originally Posted by AirRabbit

There is little doubt there ARE these folks out there - and they would likely make for excellent airline entry first officers ... but are there enough of them to supply 400 pilots a month, every month, for 12 years? And that figure is just for the US ... Europe is likely to require somethig similiar - and the Pacific Rim ... at least the same ... perhaps more. And IF (you make the call) those numbers cannot be supplied by whatever source you name, from where are those pilots going to come?

I'd be careful of forecasts. The market is flooded with experienced pilots, and yet every year since 2001, the upturn has been forecasted as being upon us. I have little doubt that the industry will have it's pilots and then some. In the case that it doesn't, then the industry will have to entice people into the flightdeck through selection processes, sponsorship or decent salaries. This will see the return of skill being the selection criteria.

Maybe the MPL is a satisfactory way of filling the shortfall, should there be one. My point was purely to contest the frequently presented scenario of the only alternative to the MPL being a 1000 hour FI bashing out circuits in a C172 whilst trying to move on - a view that you also seem to favour.

Originally Posted by AirRabbit

...but I’ve seen more than my fair share who take an instructor’s job simply to log the flight time – which can mount up fairly quickly, leaving a relatively inexperienced pilot with an ATP.

You need multi-crew time for the JAR ATPL, which negates this.

[AirRabbit]

Originally Posted by M80

My point was purely to contest the frequently presented scenario of the only alternative to the MPL being a 1000 hour FI bashing out circuits in a C172 whilst trying to move on - a view that you also seem to favour.

Actually, I don't favor the "1000 hour FI bashing out circuits in a C172 whilst trying to move on" ... my preference is to have properly qualified and reasonably experienced applicants ... and the "best" I've seen so far, are applicants from the military. However, I've also seen my fair share of "dolts" from the military - and I've wondered how on earth they'd managed to keep from killing themselves before winding up at my desk. The "1000 hour FI bashing out circuits in a C172" would be the very last preference on my list.

If there are an adequate number of corporate pilots and pilots currently flying for the regionals that would take the positions forecast to be available over the next 12 years or so (and I'm fully aware of what forecasts are - and how vulernable they are to changes in the economy, the weather, and whatever else happens by...) I think that would be wonderful. Of course, I would then wonder where the Regionals would go for the replacements they would need to fill behind all the guys leaving to take the jobs with the larger airlines ... but that's another story. If there are some who are leaving the military who would fill in the holes not covered by the corporate and regional guys, that also would be great. And if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their backsides when they jumped off logs. All of this is to say that in my very own personal opinion (humble or not-so-humble as it may be) I think that not embracing the concept of MPL and what it can do for the aviation industry is a mistake.

[M80]

Lost in translation

AirRabbit - sorry, it appears that something is getting lost in the translation. I was attempting to express that instructors don't just pound out the hours in the circuit. I think that view does FIs a great injustice of their role in aviation, and felt it was a viewpoint you were furthering. As I said previously, I've never instructed and also had some poor instructors. Having said that, I've had some inspiring and great instructors and owe them a great deal, as I imagine we can all say.

To summarise my two cents:

• 1st cent
  The MPL may well be the industry saviour, as you propose. It will be a much more appropriate qualification when/if the airlines find a shortfall of flightcrew and are required to sponsor training to meet their demand. Perhaps that's what you're also proposing and I've misunderstood? In the meantime, commercial pilots involved in air charter, air taxi and instruction are plentiful enough to fill the void - although less economically attractive.
  
  
• 2nd cent
  I find it concerning that some aspiring pilots seem to feel that a generic MPL would be an excellent idea. Surely this misconceives the entire pretext of the MPL? How would a generic MPL be more suited to the industry than a CPL?

Hope that clears up the confusion.