Congress tightens requirements for airline pilots

[protectthehornet]

aerocat

I agree with you about the seniority system. I really do. But we are talking about getting the job, and not progressing once you have the job.

The USA does have a strong GA system...but it is much weaker than 30 years ago.

certain tax incentives for airplane ownership are gone (leaseback). and the GI bill of rights (which I used) no longer supports flight instruction.

[fiftypercentn1]

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

I really don t see what's wrong if someone is a good pilot, was trained properly and gets recruited to go to a fast jet in a good company. He will have worked hard as well, and he is a good investment for the company.
It' s very good to build your way up, and most of the times is the only option anyway. But why can you not just be happy for someone who the company believes in (AND INVEST $$$, I am not referring to any of the self sponsored Type Rating/line trainings etc..) and who will most likely be a very good pilot?

Anyway flying plenty of hours is not enough for some people unfortunately, this is why the selections are (should be) intended to go beyond hours/motivation/type ratings etc..

Sometimes we are our own enemies, these energies should be used to go against the managers when they come up with self sponsored programs and destroy the terms for everyone. Not to fight our own colleagues.
This is why all these practices should be stopped by the governments, because we will never stick toghether and finish them ourselves.

[TimeOnTarget]

Militant, litigious Political Correctness is a big part of the problem in the USA along with the fact that nobody wants to pay for quality training. Too many sub-standard people sue when they don't get their way. Equality is such a beautiful thing....

Having flown on both sides of the house now, military and 121, I can say that the military system is superior. But, as many have pointed out, it begins with a more rigorous selection process.

It seems to me that many of the hour requirements have been driven by the insurance companies. They have had to find some kind of quantifiable factor to judge pilots by.

I like the ab initio concept. Our society has to realize that competent pilots are a long term investment that provides a high rate of return. The problem is that you might have to get killed (Colgan) to find out......

[AirRabbit]

Originally Posted by AerocatS2A

The US doesn't have a MPL type system because it doesn't need to, yet.

In my view … the best statement of the day!

What I have reported above looks to be pretty generalized across the spectrum. If these program tests are accurate, it will take a 2-year program to generate the kind of “right-seater” that we would want to see in that seat. If it takes a year or 2 to put together one of these programs, we are going to get to the point you described as “yet,” well before we are ready. I believe our society has become so enamored of, and driven by, “instantaneous gratification” … that we will get way too impatient and decide that the 3- to 4-year wait is too much, and move on to some other less valid but more immediate methodology. I just don’t want to waste time in finding out that some predetermined log book entries – regardless of the devotion of the individuals involved – may not be what we wanted it to be. I would much rather invest time and energy in developing a program that has been shown to be effective (through the military examples AND now through these “beta” test program examples) and have it available to provide a professional first officer for airline operations – even if it is only used to supplement the source provided by the “1500-hour-pilot-sleeping-on-the-sofa-in-the-ready-room-and-mowing-lawns-to-get-the-next-rating” methodology. I’m not trying to get into an “I’m-right-and-you’re-wrong” discussion with anyone. I just want to do all that I can to ensure that those we wind up putting into those airline right seats are the folks we would all want to see there. Our sources are not what they used to be. We are going to have to take people with less total time and less experience than we’ve been used to seeing – that is just about a GIVEN. How we do whatever we do will be something we all have to live (and pardon me, or die) with, and use, regardless of the level of competency we get. Quality in equipment will go a long way toward maintaining the existing safety level – however, while humans do make mistakes, I strongly believe we cannot afford to depend on equipment operation to substitute for professional competency.

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

protectthehornet - your reply just shows the enormous difficulties of this issue. Not only do you think you were a great co-pilot surrounded by bad captains (I wonder what take they would have had), but you do not understand the point that is being made. The mere fact that there guys out there who think that a pilot has to 'pay his dues' before he flies a jet spells enormous difficulties for the legislature. You do not want pilots in jets who have paid their dues - you want people who are most able to do the job. I have no interest whether a guy has done 1500 hours crop dusting or whatever - I care if he is overall best suited to the job. That is the whole point of selection - it ensures that it is not some guy's mate who has 'done his time', but rather the guy who has been objectively assessed as having the right material. It is not perfect, but I simply do not buy into the US argument - the flight safety statistics do not support that view either. I am a big believer in so much about the USA, and it truly is the land of aviation. There is much for the rest of the world to learn from, but in this area I think the Europeans have a little to offer too!

[protectthehornet]

fletcher

as you don't fly in the USA...I do think your views are a bit tainted. 1500 hours of crop dusting time doesn't get you an ATP...it is a wide variety of cross country and instrument time, night time too.

Each tribe of aviators has its own strengths and weaknesses. The ab initio type is to flying as a mcdonald's hamburger is to cooking.

and i would take someone with 1500 hours of cropdusting time over many other types of time.

The only reason this law had to come into being is the economic realities of regional airlines paying CRAP.

they would have very experienced pilots if they were paying 150k or more a year to a captain. but they don't.

its all about money, isn't it?

[RetiredF4]

AirRabbit

My highest respect, your analysis and your arguments are right on the spot.
All organisations involved in commercial aviation should come to the same result in view of safety.

And it is not only about the FO on the right seat, few years later those Fo´s are needed for the upgrades to captains. And they will train the future FO´s..........

franzl

[TyreCreep]

Originally Posted by Big Pistons Forever

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.
-- snip --
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.

Unfortunately some airlines in Europe have cadet programmes where the cadets pay for everything - including type rating, line flying training, and in some cases even line flying (after being cleared to line) up to a certain number of hours.
Your assessment after "but" is quite correct.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by Norman Stanley Fletcher

protectthehornet - your reply just shows the enormous difficulties of this issue. Not only do you think you were a great co-pilot surrounded by bad captains (I wonder what take they would have had), but you do not understand the point that is being made. The mere fact that there guys out there who think that a pilot has to 'pay his dues' before he flies a jet spells enormous difficulties for the legislature. You do not want pilots in jets who have paid their dues - you want people who are most able to do the job. I have no interest whether a guy has done 1500 hours crop dusting or whatever - I care if he is overall best suited to the job. That is the whole point of selection - it ensures that it is not some guy's mate who has 'done his time', but rather the guy who has been objectively assessed as having the right material. It is not perfect, but I simply do not buy into the US argument - the flight safety statistics do not support that view either. I am a big believer in so much about the USA, and it truly is the land of aviation. There is much for the rest of the world to learn from, but in this area I think the Europeans have a little to offer too!

If that "a little to offer" includes your Airline(Easyjet) practices of only accepting one flight schools graduates so it can get a kickback, using the TRTO as a profit centre and insisting that new FO's pay to fly, than frankly I very much hope that North American airlines never learn the "European" way.

[PBL]

I believe the issue of competence for airline transport pilots is more subtle than some contributors have yet acknowledged.

It appears that there are two general systems for educating ATPs. Give or take a little bit, they are as follows. One is relatively loosely-structured instruction plus lots of hours built up who knows how (crop dusting, cancelled-check transport back in the days, the people I knew did it all by ab initio instructing); plus hours in twins and a check ride. The other is systematic pre-selection, oriented full-time training according to a detailed syllabus developed with a series of potential future employers (airlines); plus hours plus check rides. The first is used by US civilian airlines. The second is used by most AFs (including the USAF) and many European airlines.

Norman Stanley Fletcher pointed out that both systems have advantages and weaknesses. He was criticised by one commentator for (presumed) lack of experience of the US situation; by another for, well, working for Easyjet I think (that cannot be a serious point).

There is a study by Michael W. Gillen in the July 2010 edition of AeroSafety World, the FSF's monthly journal/magazine, on the proficiency of some 30 presumably relatively randomly selected pilots for US airlines. I cited it in the Islamabad thread in http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...ml#post5893250 ; the URL for the article by itself is Diminishing Skills? by Michael W. Gillen. The pilots were observed while performing 5 standard manoeuvres in a simulator, and on each manoeuvre the mean performance was lower than that required of an airline transport pilot; on two out of the five, it was lower than that required for basic instrument flying.

What does this study tell us? There are a number of choices:
1. Apparently the skills exhibited during the course of their work by some subgroup of 30 professional airline pilots are not up to snuff;
2. Apparently there is a problem with the system of training and currency in US airlines;
3. Apparently the methods used for recurrent training ("currency requirements") used overwhelmingly by the world's (better) airlines are insufficient to assure the retention of the necessary level of skill;
4. There is something wrong with the study.

It is a well-written article which takes care not to claim more than has been shown and I don't see anyone proposing option 4.

Some indirectly questioned selection criteria (option 1) but the question is whether the sample is significantly unrepresentative; whether any other group of 30 pilots would have done considerably better. So, is it unrepresentative or not?

One contributor went for option 2, averring "from experience" that UK CAA-certified crew would do better.

A couple of commentators went for option 3, as I do.

One can go round for ever discussing the Colgan Air crash, and the lessons for hiring/proficiency/currency and undoubtedly one will do so (and the FAA is obliged to, as is the NTSB if any of the FAA's reactions to their recommendations are classified as "response unsatisfactory"). Brits and Europeans can say "it can't happen here" - until it does.

I cited the Gillen article in the context of a discussion as to whether CTL is a relatively risky manoeuvre in a fast commercial transport when it needs to be used, or whether it is a routine manoeuvre that all competent instrument-rated pilots ought to be able to undertake without problems. If one plumps for option 3, then one could well believe that both are the case!

I think option 3 represents a major problem and needs discussion.

In a completely different context, that of computer programming, the question has been aired for at least a couple of decades why there is so much badly-designed and badly-written software around, and why more than half of large software projects end up abandoned (usually after enormous amounts of money have been spent). One answer is that the demand for programmers is increasing enormously, whereas, as a colleague of mine once said, "time was, there were about thirty competent programmers in the world. And things have not changed." One might well consider this point, and how it applies to all professions requiring high levels of skill, such as that of professional transport pilots.

PBL

[AirRabbit]

Originally Posted by PBL

There is a study by Michael W. Gillen in the July 2010 edition of AeroSafety World, the FSF's monthly journal/magazine, on the proficiency of some 30 presumably relatively randomly selected pilots for US airlines. I cited it in the Islamabad thread in Airblue down near Islamabad; the URL for the article by itself is Diminishing Skills? by Michael W. Gillen. The pilots were observed while performing 5 standard manoeuvres in a simulator, and on each manoeuvre the mean performance was lower than that required of an airline transport pilot; on two out of the five, it was lower than that required for basic instrument flying.
I cited the Gillen article in the context of a discussion as to whether CTL is a relatively risky manoeuvre in a fast commercial transport when it needs to be used, or whether it is a routine manoeuvre that all competent instrument-rated pilots ought to be able to undertake without problems. If one plumps for option 3, then one could well believe that both are the case!

I was aware of Captain Gillen’s article in AeroSafety World, and was interested, from the start, as to what might be thought by the magazine’s readership. The reason for my interest is that it is apparent the participants in this “study,” work for airlines conducting training and checking programs approved in accordance with the FAA’s Advanced Qualification Program, or AQP. The FAA advertises this program on the FAA website as follows:

The Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) is a voluntary alternative to the traditional regulatory requirements under CFR 14, Parts 121 and 135 for pilot training and checking. Under the AQP the FAA is authorized to approve significant departures from traditional requirements, subject to justification of an equivalent or better level of safety.

My focus is on the part that states “…the FAA is authorized to approve significant departures from traditional requirements.” Let me point out that I’m not ignoring the phrase that follows; namely that these “departures from traditional requirements” are “subject to justification of an equivalent or better level of safety.” My interest comes from an admitted lack of knowledge. If my company wanted to “depart from” the traditional requirement to train for instrument approaches, what “equivalent level of safety” would be required? How would that equivalent level of safety be demonstrated? Would training on a VNAV approach suffice for training on precision approaches? Would it include auto-coupled precision approaches? Would it include non-precision approaches? What would my training program be required to include? From what I can gather from conversations during a few recently place phone calls and candid discussions on pilot training issues, every US airline may submit a differing justification for “departing from” any portion of the currently required training and checking requirements; and that includes differing justifications for deviating from the same requirement. How does that work? Is there or is there not supposed to be a standard to which airline pilots are held?

Captain Gillen’s article concludes with the following paragraph:

Airline safety can be improved by ensuring that pilots are competent not only when all advanced instrumentation is functioning but also when that instrumentation fails. Pilots possessed these basic instrument skills at one time in their careers, and their skill levels can be increased through training and practice.

Could it be that the results of the research cited by Captain Gillen actually point out a weakness in the on-going programs of some US Airlines – perhaps restricted to those training under AQP – perhaps not? If true, would that weakness be limited to the cited piloting tasks of 1) takeoff; 2) V1 cut; 3) holding; 4) ILS approach; 5) missed approach ... or might those weaknesses be dependent on what “authorizations to deviate” may have included?

[BandAide]

One thing I know is that the annual sim session is crowded by mandatory events that must be achieved, regardless of their utility on the line or contribution to safety.

Wouldn't it be grand if you could go to recurrent training with a list of things you want to work on based on problems you've encountered or an assessment of your own weaknesses? Forget it; not going to happen.

One thing I know for sure. I've spent way to much time practising engine out go arounds that will never, ever happen in real life. Has there ever been an instance anyone knows about? I appreciate the value of flying asymmetrics, and I like the V1 cut, but that's all I need.

I'd rather spend the time practicing the 31 Expressway Visual, or the Canarsie VOR, thank you very much.

[protectthehornet]

that expressway visual to 31 at LGA is a nice one...the key is to be set up near maspeth (where the tanks WERE)...2500 feet with max takeoff flaps and gear down, start to follow the expressway adding flaps on speeds to landing config prior to 1000'

maintain a descent rate consistent with a glideslope along the whole path...decreasing descent rate as you configure for landing.

join final, compensate for winds aloft and at surface...you really need to know the winds and suck on to that vasi right away...use the proper vasi bars as the upwind is for widebody.

good luck

[Pollution IV]

Why do people think that a simple raising of hrs requirements will fix the problem of shoddy acft handling, poor discipline and low tech knowledge ie poor Airmanship. The long held belief that hrs in the logbook = greater proficiency and expertise, is truly misguided and any no. of air crash events involving very experienced crews making fundamental errors will attest to that. The FAA 1500hrs requirement is purely born out of expediency and lack of drive to employ real corrective measures through relevant and focused trng. As with all things, we simply look for the quick fix. Until regulators force all air operators to provide fair and adequate trng to their pilots, accidents due to pilot error (mishandling) will continue to occur.

Modern day airline pilots are so overwhelmed with pointless admin, procedures and automation complacency/policy, that their actual flying skills are almost non-existent, even at highly regarded airlines like my employer. So who is to blame for this? Whenever an accident occurs, the airline is examined as they are the ones who employ the pilots and own the acft. Pilots like to be considered as professionals, but increasingly their professionalism is being compromised by the commercial imperative to keep aviation affordable and to increase profits for the airline. The problem is that the company does not provide them with the necessary practise to hone their flying skills to anything but an ever deceasing minimum standard. Sadly there's no easy fix, as any airline that does spend the additional money on adequate sim trng will quickly find itself behind the eight ball financially, as other lesser airlines simply conduct the regulators bare minimum. The common cry we hear from Airline Management is that the traveling public demand cheaper airfares, thus all airlines must operate to increasingly stringent budgets - this is truly specious reasoning. Do we ask a doctor to cut corners on our treatment? Do we want an electrician to wire our homes in a shoddy manner to save a few bucks or expect our accountant to claim illegal deductions that would put us in jail? Then why would the average passenger be happy with a lowering of standards in the pilots that fly them around in potentially life threatening situations? The answer is they just don't know any better. The traveling public trust the regulators to ensure that air travel meets all reasonable levels of safety and that any disreputable outfit would be grounded - they pay taxes to allow these gov't bodies to achieve that goal. The 'average joe' knows nothing about what is a safe standard and what isn't in aviation , just as he doesn't know what medical practises are endorsed or if a 5 or 50Amp fuse should be installed in their household circuit board or what tax agreements there are between countries 'X' and 'Y', hence they pay professionals to do that for them.

There are regulating bodies for all important industries and they are responsible for safe standards. They should be ensuring airlines don't go on the cheap with trng and recruitment, something that has been happening continuously throughout the time I've been in this industry -the LCC phenomenon is a readily identifiable case in point. Professionals paying for their own endorsements and in some cases for their own recurrent checking and trng, allows Airlines to devolve themselves of their responsibility for ensuring even the most meagre of standards. This is truly a miscarriage of proper conduct in any professional industry. I believe that Aviation regulators worldwide have been doing the traveling public a great disservice by promoting air travel rather than properly supervising it. We're seeing a highly dangerous paradigm of capitalist forces being allowed to determine the relative safety levels of important industries that are inherently complex and if conducted carelessly, can lead to disaster and loss of life. As a non-aviation eg. just consider the recent BP oil drilling catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, in regards to the need for good governance by regulators instead of tolerating corporate greed. Notably, BP would be far better off as a company if it was denied a licence to drill in such a precarious location.

Flying skills, regardless of how long you've had them (ie. hrs in the logbook) or how much innate talent you possess, are perishable. Regular pilot refresher trng by skilled and responsible trng personnel, not simply assessment to the minimum level, is necessary for a healthy aviation industry. This of course is expensive and unfortunately for the traveling public, for your own good the reality is, a flight should cost more than a bus ticket.

[protectthehornet]

pollution IV

your points are fine. the FAA is trying to mandate quality without paying for it.

if I were king, I would reregulate the airline industry, and in short, demand that airlines do it ''right'' and then I would raise the ticket prices at all airlines to pay for doing it ''right''.

[AirRabbit]

Originally Posted by Pollution IV

Why do people think that a simple raising of hrs requirements will fix the problem of shoddy acft handling, poor discipline and low tech knowledge ie poor Airmanship. The long held belief that hrs in the logbook = greater proficiency and expertise, is truly misguided and any no. of air crash events involving very experienced crews making fundamental errors will attest to that. The FAA 1500hrs requirement is purely born out of expediency and lack of drive to employ real corrective measures through relevant and focused trng. As with all things, we simply look for the quick fix. Until regulators force all air operators to provide fair and adequate trng to their pilots, accidents due to pilot error (mishandling) will continue to occur.

While I don't disagree with your position, I think it important to recognize that the recent development in the US for the 1500-hour requirement as a prerequisite to qualify to fly in air transportation service was not an FAA-developed requirement ... but rather a requirement levied upon the FAA from the US congress ... where the congress was yielding to political pressures from the public to "do something." The FAA has been readying a new training rule for some time now - even published a version of it last year - but were beaten down by the political considerations of those not wanting to have the airlines address the additional costs (minimal as they may be) of meeting the proposed additional training requirements. Some in the FAA are apparently trying to do the right thing and continue to be plagued by the ever-present "political" responses that inevitably rise to the surface. The training philosophy resident in the FAA's AQP alternative seems to be another of the "yield-to-the-pressures" responses to allow individual airline training programs to be differentially approved, resulting in the regulatory standards being met by virtually no one. It's an interesting concept that seems to go unnoticed by many, if not most, of those who claim to be interested in aviation training.

[justanotherflyer]

MPL, as described in PANS-TRG (Doc 9868) is an ICAO initiative. The USA is a Contracting State, and also a member of the Flight Crew Licensing and Training Panel which developed the concept.

All of that would seem to imply an endorsement, but has the USA anywhere stated its official position on MPL? The 1500 hour proposal would seem to negate it totally.

"To qualify for PANS status, the material should be suitable for application on a worldwide basis. The Council invites Contracting States to publish any differences in their Aeronautical Information Publications when knowledge of the differences is important to the safety of air navigation." (ICAO: "Making an ICAO Standard").

[AirRabbit]

Originally Posted by justanotherflyer

MPL, as described in PANS-TRG (Doc 9868) is an ICAO initiative. The USA is a Contracting State, and also a member of the Flight Crew Licensing and Training Panel which developed the concept.

All of that would seem to imply an endorsement, but has the USA anywhere stated its official position on MPL? The 1500 hour proposal would seem to negate it totally.

"To qualify for PANS status, the material should be suitable for application on a worldwide basis. The Council invites Contracting States to publish any differences in their Aeronautical Information Publications when knowledge of the differences is important to the safety of air navigation." (ICAO: "Making an ICAO Standard").

I agree with you completely – the fact that the US is an ICAO contracting state and a member of the FCL&T panel, would seem to suggest “an endorsement” of the MPL concept. But you are absolutely correct, nowhere (hopefully, yet) has the FAA said anything about MPL; good, bad, or indifferent. I’m told that at least one attempt by Boeing to brief some in the FAA was halted. Very strange. It seems to me that the current attitude is to chase after the AQP concept (now apparently gathering interest and support outside of the US as well as expanding inside the US) where there is no requirement to follow any of the existing rules if only the requester can provide some sort of justification that what they propose will provide “an equivalent level of safety;” whatever that means. I am beginning to fear that every airline in the US will cease training on stalls; even if they are only recoveries from approaches to stall; because, in my opinion, that is better than training on a windshear recovery as a viable substitute - as some are now doing. Almost any pilot recognizes that these two situations are not the same and recovery from each requires opposite responses. Another question ... why would a regulator allow an airline to conduct the type rating certification check ride in a Level 6 (no motion, no visual, basic programming) flight training device? Is that even remotely logical? What else is being eliminated? No one seems to know. What’s worse – no one seems to give a flip! Is anyone watching the store? Does anyone care?