Congress tightens requirements for airline pilots
BART
Whereas London's Docklands Light Railway (DLR) designed and built 25+ years ago has always been driverless. I have ridden it from it's inception and to this day, on a much enlarged network, there has never been an accident.
All the "train operators" who normally open and close the doors are trained to drive them if there is a computer failure onboard or in the signaling system and this happened not infrequently in the early days. However I have not seen this in recent years. Their normal operating station is at one of the doors near the rear of the train and not at the controls so they are not "hovering" waiting to take over.
Most of the passengers who use London City airport are happy to use it as am I along with thousands of daily commuters and residents, we shall see if our optimism is well placed.
All the "train operators" who normally open and close the doors are trained to drive them if there is a computer failure onboard or in the signaling system and this happened not infrequently in the early days. However I have not seen this in recent years. Their normal operating station is at one of the doors near the rear of the train and not at the controls so they are not "hovering" waiting to take over.
Most of the passengers who use London City airport are happy to use it as am I along with thousands of daily commuters and residents, we shall see if our optimism is well placed.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by p51guy
I think 2500 hrs would be better but 1500 is a good start. Nobody with less time should be piloting an airliner with over 100 people on board. Not even 10 people aboard. It wasn't the case years ago and we were not short of pilots. Automation will not replace pilot competency. Pushing buttons works some of the time but a capable pilot works almost all of the time. Disconnecting the autopilot and autothrottle when the aircraft is not doing what you want is much easier than button pushing your way out.
Of course, after the late 1960’s, with the Viet Nam era veterans flooding out of the military, you could throw a rock and hit 12 people out of every 50 who were lined up as applicants ... where all 12 would have between 2000 and 5000 hours of heavy, multi-engine, turbojet time; have their ATP and FE certificates; a type rating on some turbojet machine; be under 27 years of age; and look like “Steve Canyon.” And if, for some reason, candidate number 11 or 12, didn’t have the right eye color or some other disqualifying trait, surely somewhere in the remaining 38 candidates, ALL the “right stuff” could be found.
That is no longer the picture. If some of the predictions I’ve heard are correct – and I tend to believe they are – between 2013 and 2023, in the US alone, fully one-half of the airline pilots will retire. With 120,000 airline pilots on the books now – that means 60,000 pilots will retire during that 10-year period. That means, for US consumption alone – not considering any airline expansion – there will have to be approximately 115 pilots produced every week – that is every week – throughout that 10-year period. If we insist on 1500, or 2000, or 2500 hours as an entry minimum for each – I’m not sure how that is going to be met.
Competence and Hours
I'm afraid that I have to disagree with many of the sentiments expressed here but I am ion complete agreement with Ledsled.
It is (or should be) all about competence. We have been very slack in the airline world and have substituted "lots of hours" for "competence". However, as some have said, the days when multi - thousand hour pilots were lining up for jobs are rapidly coming to an end.
The recent decision to mandate 1500 hours for airline pilots is noting more than a knee jerk. Where is the science in that number? 1500 hours does not designate comptence - nor does any other number.
It is all about standards of initial, conversion and upgrade training and appropriate metrics to determine achieving and maintaining competence at each level.
The Colgan accident revealed many important issues that really are safety factors in the industry today - pilot hours was not one of them. Sadly, the others are more politically difficult to deal with.
Fly Safe
PJ88
P.S. On the subject of SOPs and flight data monitoring, the older I get, the more I have come to believe that solid adhereance to well written SOPs is a cornerstone of safety. The introduction of ALARS stable approach criteria and mandatory go - arounds will continue to save lives. So, to all those who believe that the airline profession is about individiualism and flair - sorry those days are over.
It is (or should be) all about competence. We have been very slack in the airline world and have substituted "lots of hours" for "competence". However, as some have said, the days when multi - thousand hour pilots were lining up for jobs are rapidly coming to an end.
The recent decision to mandate 1500 hours for airline pilots is noting more than a knee jerk. Where is the science in that number? 1500 hours does not designate comptence - nor does any other number.
It is all about standards of initial, conversion and upgrade training and appropriate metrics to determine achieving and maintaining competence at each level.
The Colgan accident revealed many important issues that really are safety factors in the industry today - pilot hours was not one of them. Sadly, the others are more politically difficult to deal with.
Fly Safe
PJ88
P.S. On the subject of SOPs and flight data monitoring, the older I get, the more I have come to believe that solid adhereance to well written SOPs is a cornerstone of safety. The introduction of ALARS stable approach criteria and mandatory go - arounds will continue to save lives. So, to all those who believe that the airline profession is about individiualism and flair - sorry those days are over.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 250 hr cram course to get an airline job is better than at least 1500 hrs of real flying is the answer? I don't think so. An airline cockpit should not be part of your initial training to figure out what really goes on out there. I have been single pilot in a 737 because the FO couldn't even copy a clearance. He had his ratings but no experience. I would have been better off single pilot that day. He wouldn't have had to do a 360 on final to lose altitude and slow down if he had 1500 hrs or more.
P51,
So 1500 hours in Dad's 172 would have fixed it?
Your FO's training - not hours - was the problem. You say "he had his ratings". This sums up the issue. The "ratings", as currently run, do not measure the necessary competencencies. It is the training system (including ratings) that needs to change.
So 1500 hours in Dad's 172 would have fixed it?
Your FO's training - not hours - was the problem. You say "he had his ratings". This sums up the issue. The "ratings", as currently run, do not measure the necessary competencencies. It is the training system (including ratings) that needs to change.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My first 1500 hrs was a little crop dusting, lots of instructing and some charter plus I paid for it all myself for the initial training. I went to Embry Riddle to get my commercial not realizing it was a waste of money because their ads about getting you an airline job were not exactly true. You have to get beat up a bit in this profession to gain the necessary experience. Flying freight in a D18 helps. My first day flying the 737 I could actually be an asset to my captain.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: depends on the mood
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said propjet88, training is what counts. And even more importantly selection before it. Some people need less time/hrs to get to the required level, and vice versa. Some people will never become very good pilots, some people get there fast. Human nature.
Decades of people who started flying fast (military) jets with few hundreds hours prove it.
And cadets straight to fast (commercial) jets with only a couple of hundreds hours are another sound proof (and this has always happened in all the majors, all over the world).
Having said all of this I agree that experience in very important, and no company should lack of a good percentage of its pilots with plenty of it.
As I said, i my opinion, the safest way is:
-Strict selection
-Good training
As simple as that.
The authorities should make it compulsory, and forbid any other way of accessing the job. And forbid any forms of charging the pilot for any training after the CPL. If you company can t afford this you end the business, end of story.
2/3/4000 hrs ONLY, won't guarantee anything.
When people with this background will have flown many years they will be able to train at high standards the new people, and so on.
Problem is..all of this costs MONEY, this is why unfortunately it will never happen.
So we can talk about this for years, but until REAL laws are made (to restrict the companies) and big changes in attitude are taken by the authorities, nothing will ever change.
Decades of people who started flying fast (military) jets with few hundreds hours prove it.
And cadets straight to fast (commercial) jets with only a couple of hundreds hours are another sound proof (and this has always happened in all the majors, all over the world).
Having said all of this I agree that experience in very important, and no company should lack of a good percentage of its pilots with plenty of it.
As I said, i my opinion, the safest way is:
-Strict selection
-Good training
As simple as that.
The authorities should make it compulsory, and forbid any other way of accessing the job. And forbid any forms of charging the pilot for any training after the CPL. If you company can t afford this you end the business, end of story.
2/3/4000 hrs ONLY, won't guarantee anything.
When people with this background will have flown many years they will be able to train at high standards the new people, and so on.
Problem is..all of this costs MONEY, this is why unfortunately it will never happen.
So we can talk about this for years, but until REAL laws are made (to restrict the companies) and big changes in attitude are taken by the authorities, nothing will ever change.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My initial airline wouldn't hire anybody from the outside without the ATR. They reduced our requirements for our FE's when their job went away. It made sense to me. Isn't that what the ATR is for, flying an airliner?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: england
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting conflict of thoughts here. Does 1500 hours in a cessna make you a better multi-crew jet pilot? I think not, and neither do BA or Lufthansa.
BA has had 250 hour cadets in jets since they started training folks at Hamble, and are seemingly very happy with the results (you may have flown in the back of a 757 with one of them). Indeed, try getting into BA with 1500 piston time and no approved training course and you will be shown the door. Documented assessments on every one of those 250 hours + sim time is somewhat more use in determining someone's ability than 1500 hours unmonitored PIC potentially doing as one wishes and cutting corners.
Automoation use is a valid on-going debate. However, again I dont think that flying a light single is really going to be a massive amount of use when trying to fly an ILS in manual reversion on the 73; taking some power off in a stall because the pitch-power couple is too great; or remembering not to jab the rudder pedals in an A300 like you used to in a Piper.
Its about recruiting the right people and training them well. A catch-all 1500 hours requirement is (as many have said here already) an easy knee-jerk reaction that does nothing to improve flight safety or address any of the real issues regarding training, assessment and fatigue.
As an aside, P51 guy,
If you had a valid reason to not be fully configured when your airline requires you to, put in a report and explain why. I'm sure they will commend your airmanship. However, unstable approaches and deviation from SOPs "because I know better" are a dangerous mindset, proven by many an incident and accident.
BA has had 250 hour cadets in jets since they started training folks at Hamble, and are seemingly very happy with the results (you may have flown in the back of a 757 with one of them). Indeed, try getting into BA with 1500 piston time and no approved training course and you will be shown the door. Documented assessments on every one of those 250 hours + sim time is somewhat more use in determining someone's ability than 1500 hours unmonitored PIC potentially doing as one wishes and cutting corners.
Automoation use is a valid on-going debate. However, again I dont think that flying a light single is really going to be a massive amount of use when trying to fly an ILS in manual reversion on the 73; taking some power off in a stall because the pitch-power couple is too great; or remembering not to jab the rudder pedals in an A300 like you used to in a Piper.
Its about recruiting the right people and training them well. A catch-all 1500 hours requirement is (as many have said here already) an easy knee-jerk reaction that does nothing to improve flight safety or address any of the real issues regarding training, assessment and fatigue.
As an aside, P51 guy,
I agree totally, my airline now monitors your whole approach with acars and reports if you deviate from sop. Flaps not set at 1,000 ft sets off an alarm. The FO is equally responsible so has to turn in the captain or vice versa.
My first 1500 hrs was a little crop dusting, lots of instructing and some charter plus I paid for it all myself for the initial training. I went to Embry Riddle to get my commercial not realizing it was a waste of money because their ads about getting you an airline job were not exactly true. You have to get beat up a bit in this profession to gain the necessary experience. Flying freight in a D18 helps. My first day flying the 737 I could actually be an asset to my captain.
1500 hours and an ATPL is not experience, it is a number and a qualification that sometimes corresponds to experience and sometimes doesn't. My first 1200 hours were spent turning people upside down in a Pitts Special, great fun, turned me into a good hands-on pilot, but totally useless in terms of preparing me for multi-crew turbine. In contrast, the subsequent 2000 hours flying single pilot multi-engine IFR with two other non-pilot flight crew in a company with mature procedures prepared me very well for multi-crew turbine.
1500 hours is meaningless, it's what you've done in those 1500 hours that counts.
The European airlines that have/had cadet programs that resulted in 250 hr narrow body jet FO's cannot be compared to what is happening in North America....and lately much of Europe. These programs work because of an extremely demanding selection process. Since the airlines were paying for all the training they were not going to waste money on marginal candidates. Does anyone think that the captain of the Colgan air Q400 crash , would have been accepted and made it through the old BA cadet scheme given his record of failed check rides and other indications of poor performance ?
But if the student is paying the training provider than there is a strong financial pressure not to turn away marginal but well funded students. Indeed a marginal student that needs more training means more profit for the training provider.
There is no practical way to address this fundamental problem, but a requirement that airline pilots have airline transport licenses will IMO weed out most of those pilots that ultimately do not have the aptitude. P2F works for 100 or 200 hrs but buying 1500 hrs of "experience" is not going to happen very often. These folks are going to have to get real jobs on their way to 1500 hrs.
But if the student is paying the training provider than there is a strong financial pressure not to turn away marginal but well funded students. Indeed a marginal student that needs more training means more profit for the training provider.
There is no practical way to address this fundamental problem, but a requirement that airline pilots have airline transport licenses will IMO weed out most of those pilots that ultimately do not have the aptitude. P2F works for 100 or 200 hrs but buying 1500 hrs of "experience" is not going to happen very often. These folks are going to have to get real jobs on their way to 1500 hrs.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Philippines
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it is an ATP rating
Thanks junkflyer.
The legislation is for an ATP rating, which requires at least 1500hrs total.
The media (& consequently many respondents here, locked on to the 1500 hour thing "Why not 2500 hours etc")
History: Way back in the early days, there were quite a few airline prangs, so the forerunner of the FAA made a regulation that the PIC (we are talking circa DC-2 days) in addition to a Commercial Pilot Certificate, must fullfil the requirements and obtain an Airline Transport Pilot Rating.
It came to pass, that airlines self regulated (jet age) through market forces etc. that the minimum for new hires (even for 2nd officer/FE) was an ATP. (Also in many other markets, (countries) outside the US)
Without Commercial experience, a newly graduated CPL only has a license to learn.
If that sounds harsh, any aviation rating also carries that "disclaimer"
"A smart man learns from his mistakes, a wise man learns from the mistakes of others"
In reverse many GA/freight companies (Part 135) in the early '80's would only hire CPL IR, to fly twin cessnas etc (same pay as an airline junior BTW) as any experienced ATP holder would be "off to the airlines" after 6 months.
Fast forward, you rarely see 19 seat turboprops any more, let alone the 9 seat Piper Navajo's etc in airline service nowadays. That niche has been filled by Regional jets, and in the case of Buffalo, a 75 seat Q-400.
Yes it is still all part 121, but the division between the big blokes, and the regionals, experience wise, has become a vast yawning gap.
Disliking over regulation as much as the next man (Orville & Wilbur would not have gotten through the maze), I have to lean towards this one.
I think what the US congress are saying, is that if you want to fly an airliner, you must obtain an airline pilot's licence. Most of us did.
The legislation is for an ATP rating, which requires at least 1500hrs total.
The media (& consequently many respondents here, locked on to the 1500 hour thing "Why not 2500 hours etc")
History: Way back in the early days, there were quite a few airline prangs, so the forerunner of the FAA made a regulation that the PIC (we are talking circa DC-2 days) in addition to a Commercial Pilot Certificate, must fullfil the requirements and obtain an Airline Transport Pilot Rating.
It came to pass, that airlines self regulated (jet age) through market forces etc. that the minimum for new hires (even for 2nd officer/FE) was an ATP. (Also in many other markets, (countries) outside the US)
Without Commercial experience, a newly graduated CPL only has a license to learn.
If that sounds harsh, any aviation rating also carries that "disclaimer"
"A smart man learns from his mistakes, a wise man learns from the mistakes of others"
In reverse many GA/freight companies (Part 135) in the early '80's would only hire CPL IR, to fly twin cessnas etc (same pay as an airline junior BTW) as any experienced ATP holder would be "off to the airlines" after 6 months.
Fast forward, you rarely see 19 seat turboprops any more, let alone the 9 seat Piper Navajo's etc in airline service nowadays. That niche has been filled by Regional jets, and in the case of Buffalo, a 75 seat Q-400.
Yes it is still all part 121, but the division between the big blokes, and the regionals, experience wise, has become a vast yawning gap.
Disliking over regulation as much as the next man (Orville & Wilbur would not have gotten through the maze), I have to lean towards this one.
I think what the US congress are saying, is that if you want to fly an airliner, you must obtain an airline pilot's licence. Most of us did.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I really do understand the situation – and some of us have been down this particular road previously, but there is more than one way to skin that proverbial cat. If we take a moment and look at how the military in the US hires, trains, and utilizes new pilots – and take a page from that book, why is it the airline industry (hopefully with the assistance of the government) couldn’t do almost exactly the same thing?
US Air Force and Navy pilots start their training – most of them anyway – with about as close to zero knowledge and experience as one can get. A year later they sport a shiny new set of pilot wings and with a relatively short course of additional training – for the transport stuff, anyway – they begin to fly as a co-pilot. At that point in their short career, most of those guys have between 230 and 250 hours of flight time (total). Are they the “ace of the base?” No, of course not. But they are competent and they generally know what they know and don’t tend to push the envelope into areas they don’t know. Why couldn’t the US transportation industry do essentially the same thing? It takes 2 separate actions … careful screening (very careful screening) and diligent training (very diligent training). No punches are pulled and everyone is expected to learn what they need to learn or they go someplace else. Cost – yeah – it’ll cost … probably a lot. But hear me out.
What if the US Departments of Defense, Education, Commerce, Transportation, and Labor all got together with (pick a number of) aviation training organizations – (very likely NOT much like many organizations out there at the moment – although, not knowing a lot about more than a very few – there may be some that are just perfect for what I’m describing) – and with organizations like ALPA, APA, ATA, RAA, and throw in a few more letters if you like … including the individual applicant for a portion of the cost (for something like 15 - 20 % of the total) ... and develop a program that is similar to what ICAO has described – called MPL. The process should be one that is divided between flying and ground school subjects (note the plural …) where the “flying” portion would be divided … something between 65 and 75 percent in simulation and between 25 and 35 percent in airplanes.
Before I get clobbered here – let me point out that programs like this have been in “beta” testing for quite some time – all over the globe. There are 13 such programs either in progress, just started or starting within a couple of weeks – all differing to some degree in some of the aspects of the program. Those in operations have been carefully watched and are apparently providing some very positive results.
The programs vary slightly from organization to organization – but is divided into 4 phases where the first 2 phases are in basic flight training devices (differing names and titles depending on where the training takes place) and the airplane – with airplane time divided between dual instruction and solo. The hours in a simulation device during these first 2 phases range from 85 hours to 150 hours, and from 85 to 135 hours in an airplane. Phase 3 is all simulation and ranges from a low of 20 hours (only one – next lowest was 30) and a high of 160 hours. Phase 4 is also conducted in a simulation device – but it’s the top end (i.e., Level D simulator) for the same airplane the students will ultimately be flying. This training range is from about 30 hours to a high of 120 – and the 120 hour program has the first 50 hours in a basic training device for the specific airplane and the balance in the Level D simulator for the specific airplane.
The ground school hours across the entire course varies from 800 to 2270 hours.
At the conclusion of this training, each “student” has to complete between 12 and 30 takeoffs and landings in the actual airplane they will be flying, and then complete between 40 and 200 sectors of line flying – some of that time from the jump seat – but the data to which I have access doesn’t clearly indicate how much. The entire course length – start to finish – 14 months to 36 months (with only one at the 36 month point and the next highest at 24 months). Of the 13 programs only 7 have completed students at this point – and the number of students completed so far is right at 400.
Of those programs completed so far, the breakdown of simulator to airplane hours ranged from 62% simulator and 38% airplane for those on the lower end totals, and 76% simulator and 24% airplane for the higher end totals before counting the required takeoffs and landings in the airplane and, of course, before the actual sector flying.
The reports I’ve been able to see (from the line check persons conducting the required sector flying) are rather impressive. They include comments like “impressive young man,” “knowledgeable, proficient pilot,” and “will have no problem with regular line flying.” I’ve only been able to see reports on those who have finished – and, as you would expect, not everyone who starts, finishes, but I’m told that the graduation rate is above 80% for all the programs graduating students.
US Air Force and Navy pilots start their training – most of them anyway – with about as close to zero knowledge and experience as one can get. A year later they sport a shiny new set of pilot wings and with a relatively short course of additional training – for the transport stuff, anyway – they begin to fly as a co-pilot. At that point in their short career, most of those guys have between 230 and 250 hours of flight time (total). Are they the “ace of the base?” No, of course not. But they are competent and they generally know what they know and don’t tend to push the envelope into areas they don’t know. Why couldn’t the US transportation industry do essentially the same thing? It takes 2 separate actions … careful screening (very careful screening) and diligent training (very diligent training). No punches are pulled and everyone is expected to learn what they need to learn or they go someplace else. Cost – yeah – it’ll cost … probably a lot. But hear me out.
What if the US Departments of Defense, Education, Commerce, Transportation, and Labor all got together with (pick a number of) aviation training organizations – (very likely NOT much like many organizations out there at the moment – although, not knowing a lot about more than a very few – there may be some that are just perfect for what I’m describing) – and with organizations like ALPA, APA, ATA, RAA, and throw in a few more letters if you like … including the individual applicant for a portion of the cost (for something like 15 - 20 % of the total) ... and develop a program that is similar to what ICAO has described – called MPL. The process should be one that is divided between flying and ground school subjects (note the plural …) where the “flying” portion would be divided … something between 65 and 75 percent in simulation and between 25 and 35 percent in airplanes.
Before I get clobbered here – let me point out that programs like this have been in “beta” testing for quite some time – all over the globe. There are 13 such programs either in progress, just started or starting within a couple of weeks – all differing to some degree in some of the aspects of the program. Those in operations have been carefully watched and are apparently providing some very positive results.
The programs vary slightly from organization to organization – but is divided into 4 phases where the first 2 phases are in basic flight training devices (differing names and titles depending on where the training takes place) and the airplane – with airplane time divided between dual instruction and solo. The hours in a simulation device during these first 2 phases range from 85 hours to 150 hours, and from 85 to 135 hours in an airplane. Phase 3 is all simulation and ranges from a low of 20 hours (only one – next lowest was 30) and a high of 160 hours. Phase 4 is also conducted in a simulation device – but it’s the top end (i.e., Level D simulator) for the same airplane the students will ultimately be flying. This training range is from about 30 hours to a high of 120 – and the 120 hour program has the first 50 hours in a basic training device for the specific airplane and the balance in the Level D simulator for the specific airplane.
The ground school hours across the entire course varies from 800 to 2270 hours.
At the conclusion of this training, each “student” has to complete between 12 and 30 takeoffs and landings in the actual airplane they will be flying, and then complete between 40 and 200 sectors of line flying – some of that time from the jump seat – but the data to which I have access doesn’t clearly indicate how much. The entire course length – start to finish – 14 months to 36 months (with only one at the 36 month point and the next highest at 24 months). Of the 13 programs only 7 have completed students at this point – and the number of students completed so far is right at 400.
Of those programs completed so far, the breakdown of simulator to airplane hours ranged from 62% simulator and 38% airplane for those on the lower end totals, and 76% simulator and 24% airplane for the higher end totals before counting the required takeoffs and landings in the airplane and, of course, before the actual sector flying.
The reports I’ve been able to see (from the line check persons conducting the required sector flying) are rather impressive. They include comments like “impressive young man,” “knowledgeable, proficient pilot,” and “will have no problem with regular line flying.” I’ve only been able to see reports on those who have finished – and, as you would expect, not everyone who starts, finishes, but I’m told that the graduation rate is above 80% for all the programs graduating students.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a highly emotive issue that is very difficult to have a rational discussion on. There is also a significant cultural difference in approach between the Europeans and Americans. Traditional US thinking on the subject is that hours are everything and that you need to 'do your time' on pretty well anything before you can enter the realms of jet flying. The European approach has been increasingly to value 'high-quality training' above hours of flight time. Part of the driver for this has been the emergence of ab-initio training organisations, like CTC in the UK, who offer great selection and extremely expensive training, but a virtual guarantee if a placement with a partner airline.
I am a Training Captain (Check Airman in US parlance) with one of Europe's larger jet airlines where we have historically taken pilots from a wide variety of backgrounds (turboprop, military fast jet and transport, north sea helicopter, low-houred cadet, single-engine flying instructor etc). More recently, for cost cutting purposes we have tended to recruit from cadet courses. We therefore have 155 hour pilots in some cases who have their first job as an A320 or 737 First Officer. They are well selected and trained, but my observations are that there is no experience like experience. You simply cannot beat 'stick time' with any amount of good training. That is not to knock the calibre of the basic candidate - it simply states the obvious. Therefore to knock someone with 1500 hours on a Cessna 172 is very unwise. The truth of such an individual is that he most likely achieved that figure as an instructor and therefore has not got quite as much stick time as first seemed the case. Nonetheless he has a great background to build on.
The US change of law is basically worthless because it does not deal with the cultural issue deep within US pilot psyche which values hours in their own right but does not emphasise selection on grounds of aptitude to the correct level. Similarly the Europeans have failed to see the value of experience and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
I can only say what my own conclusion is after all this time as to what makes a good airline pilot. It is a combination of 5 core issues - Aptitude, Training, Knowledge, Skill and Experience. Without the first two (the great strengths of the Europeans) the other three will never be enough. However, until you have the last three you are seriously at risk and should be very wary indeed. The problem with the European system is that not enough emphasis or value is placed on those last three, thereby opening the way to problems. In other words neither of us has got it totally right at the moment, and we both need to change.
I am a Training Captain (Check Airman in US parlance) with one of Europe's larger jet airlines where we have historically taken pilots from a wide variety of backgrounds (turboprop, military fast jet and transport, north sea helicopter, low-houred cadet, single-engine flying instructor etc). More recently, for cost cutting purposes we have tended to recruit from cadet courses. We therefore have 155 hour pilots in some cases who have their first job as an A320 or 737 First Officer. They are well selected and trained, but my observations are that there is no experience like experience. You simply cannot beat 'stick time' with any amount of good training. That is not to knock the calibre of the basic candidate - it simply states the obvious. Therefore to knock someone with 1500 hours on a Cessna 172 is very unwise. The truth of such an individual is that he most likely achieved that figure as an instructor and therefore has not got quite as much stick time as first seemed the case. Nonetheless he has a great background to build on.
The US change of law is basically worthless because it does not deal with the cultural issue deep within US pilot psyche which values hours in their own right but does not emphasise selection on grounds of aptitude to the correct level. Similarly the Europeans have failed to see the value of experience and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
I can only say what my own conclusion is after all this time as to what makes a good airline pilot. It is a combination of 5 core issues - Aptitude, Training, Knowledge, Skill and Experience. Without the first two (the great strengths of the Europeans) the other three will never be enough. However, until you have the last three you are seriously at risk and should be very wary indeed. The problem with the European system is that not enough emphasis or value is placed on those last three, thereby opening the way to problems. In other words neither of us has got it totally right at the moment, and we both need to change.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why "cadet" programs don't work in the USA.
You see, we are a country in which an individual works hard to get ahead...competes with all of those around him. And selection process will often overlook extreme motivation.
Motivation, hard work, dedication, and things that can not be placed into a selection process calculus would get over looked. A cadet who gets 250 hours and then starts in a nice comfortable Airbus 320 series has not paid his dues.
It is the guy who sleeps on the couch at the little airport waiting for a new student to build a few hours...someone who ''suffers for his art" if you will.
A selection process won't make a great artist (painter)...but it might save him cutting off his ear.
I've flown as copilot to a guy who was an air force (usaf) guy who became a C141 copilot at 250 hours. He was a crappy captain and didn't know much (even after years in the air force and years at the airline). I pointed out that his oil quantity was low on number two engine (prior to takeoff...JT8D). He looked at me, a 3 year copilot by that time and said: what should we do? I told him that it might come up when we add power and we should monitor it as we spooled up on the runway. He had never heard of such a thing...but of course it worked.
later on, on the same flight, I said we should fly at FL230 to avoid turbulence. He told me that was terribly stupid and we should fly HIGH to get best fuel burn. So UP we went...knocked around terribly. We came back down to FL230, GOT DIRECT EVERYWHERE cuz no one else was there and came in early, under fuel burn with a smoother flight.
He said we made a great team. I told him I would never fly with him again and he was an idiot.
So, there you have it. One line of a cadet type program and another, the suffering artist.
I would not have qualified for a cadet program...but my motivation to excel as a pilot may not have been quantifiable in a selection process.
Its also why Wilbur and Orville made it and Langley didn't.
You see, we are a country in which an individual works hard to get ahead...competes with all of those around him. And selection process will often overlook extreme motivation.
Motivation, hard work, dedication, and things that can not be placed into a selection process calculus would get over looked. A cadet who gets 250 hours and then starts in a nice comfortable Airbus 320 series has not paid his dues.
It is the guy who sleeps on the couch at the little airport waiting for a new student to build a few hours...someone who ''suffers for his art" if you will.
A selection process won't make a great artist (painter)...but it might save him cutting off his ear.
I've flown as copilot to a guy who was an air force (usaf) guy who became a C141 copilot at 250 hours. He was a crappy captain and didn't know much (even after years in the air force and years at the airline). I pointed out that his oil quantity was low on number two engine (prior to takeoff...JT8D). He looked at me, a 3 year copilot by that time and said: what should we do? I told him that it might come up when we add power and we should monitor it as we spooled up on the runway. He had never heard of such a thing...but of course it worked.
later on, on the same flight, I said we should fly at FL230 to avoid turbulence. He told me that was terribly stupid and we should fly HIGH to get best fuel burn. So UP we went...knocked around terribly. We came back down to FL230, GOT DIRECT EVERYWHERE cuz no one else was there and came in early, under fuel burn with a smoother flight.
He said we made a great team. I told him I would never fly with him again and he was an idiot.
So, there you have it. One line of a cadet type program and another, the suffering artist.
I would not have qualified for a cadet program...but my motivation to excel as a pilot may not have been quantifiable in a selection process.
Its also why Wilbur and Orville made it and Langley didn't.
Originally Posted by protectthehornet
You see, we are a country in which an individual works hard to get ahead...competes with all of those around him. And selection process will often overlook extreme motivation.