Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

FAA panel proposes that airline co-pilot standards be raised

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

FAA panel proposes that airline co-pilot standards be raised

Old 27th Sep 2010, 12:28
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 5,791
Received 112 Likes on 54 Posts
IF the FAA (or anyone else) is serious - the whole thing is fixed by requiring that every approach in CAVOK conditions is hand flown below 3000 feet AGL.

That simply and quickly ensures that hand skills are practised about 30% of the time (more in some area, less in others, I'll grant.)

These pilots may very well have come from a flight instruction background where bad habits develop and go uncorrected. Having 3000 hours is all well and good, but if 2800 of them were spent bashing the circuit at Vero Beach in CAVOK conditions then where's the experience?
Never been an instructor then, I can see. Instructors being those pilots who spend their entire time ensuring that bad habits don't develop, and do go corrected.
Checkboard is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2010, 15:09
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by A37575
One thing for sure and that is the regulators are not going to be of any help in the discussion. Many of those are retired airline pilots behind the CAA desks so caught up with interminable audits of operator's paperwork, that they have no time left for constructive thinking. And even one of them did, chances are his thoughts would be promptly squashed by the next senior manager above him. Don't make waves, is the first thing you are told if you want to move up the food chain in the various CAA's.

Been there a long time ago...and it was soul destroying
I’ve heard similar stories, but I just cannot believe that there aren’t at least some within the ranks of the regulators who are either not yet blinded by that kind of ridiculous code or are the type to fight it “in-house.”

Therefore -- a general plea to all:

I know that I don’t always agree with everything that everyone else feels is right or wrong with this industry. Just as I’m sure there are those who don’t necessarily agree with me all the time (although, I just cannot understand why they don’t … ) but, what I DO know is that if we are going to see this business become what we all know it can become instead of where many of us feel it is headed, we won’t see the necessary changes by all of us sitting on our hands waiting for someone else to do or say something. If you believe something should be done – more training provided – more specific training – or flying each approach in CAVU conditions below 8000 feet (or you pick an altitude) – whatever it is YOU think is necessary – PLEASE consider calling or writing to your regulatory authority … but not just to the “the authority.” Pick a name – prefereably, someone you know who works there – even more preferably, someone who you know or whose reputation is more like what you believe the regulator should be like. And don’t be content to writing one letter or making one phone call. Pick a dozen such chaps. Write a dozen letters and make a dozen phone calls. Then do it again. And again. And again. Who knows … it may be your next phone call or letter that might get to the person who can make a difference. If you don’t believe it is necessary to do this … fine. Go on about your business – as long as we have a business. But … if you want to see the changes made you KNOW are necessary – please recognize that they won’t happen until someone else sees and understands and agrees with you – and until that someone is high enough in the regulatory authority’s offices … it is likely NOT going to happen! What on earth are you waiting for?
AirRabbit is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2010, 16:07
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Reaping what you sow

Folks,

The problem has arisen because the path to glory for 35 year old MBA financial wunderkind is minimum investment, maximum cash flow and treat the people like all other commodities. Oops, what do you mean there is lead time for those pilot commodity things? Bugga!

Too late to invest (don't want to anyway) so let's work out how to remove the restrictions! I know - 200 hour copilots, change the ATPL rules so that they don't have to have any time fending for themselves and let's go...

The only problem is that the underinvestment makes low experience pilots the only option if the fleet expansions go as advertised. As much as I hate it, I'm no longer sure that the fight against low experience is worth pursuing any more. I think we need to focus our energy on how to protect them, us and the travelling public by looking at new recurrent and developmental training paradigms that cater for the minimum experience input.

And sadly, the only joy in it will be watching the financial engineering architects of our current dilemma doing their training cost budgets and coming to understand "penny wise, pound foolish"!

Stay Alive,
4dogs is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2010, 21:47
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 447
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hours aren't all there is to experience. Most of Europe' airlines have been employing low-hour pilots coming from more or less tightly controlled pilot academies for decades without apparent detrimental results to safety statistics.

Adding a 1500hr entry requirment for airlines will make conditions for those short of these limits even worse and increase the market for "pay 2 fly" programmes or put pressure on wages for commercial operations not falling under the 1500hr rule (the likes of NetJets?)

Having flown a couple 100 hours before being hired by an airline I am glad for all the experiences I had before flying the line, but whether towing gliders, dropping parachutists or moving cancelled checks around the country will provide you with relevant experience or just give you time to develop bad habits will depend a lot on the operation you join. Unfortunately young pilots will lack the experience to distinguish between good and not so good operations.
Alpine Flyer is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2010, 02:43
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stairways to heaven
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Slightly off-topic.

We are acquiring 1 possibly 2 Lear 60 in the next few months and i was wondering if there are any restrictions flying a mixed crew (FAA/JAA) on a certain registrar.
jackx123 is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2010, 01:00
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There is a difference ...

Without going down the "I didn't get a jet job till I had x 000 hour"

My perceiption from the other seat is : the guys that come through the fast route can in most cases be relied on for normal day/night ops, they are good systems operators, and with every flight learn something about flying.

The self improvers (myself included) have the awareness that makes the team complete, having taught/examined ab-initio students.

The problem comes when one finds oneself dealing with a situation that is offscale in terms of situalional awareness for ones flightdeck partner.

One is suddenly doing it, aware of an impending situation that only experience has taught, albeit with a very capable individual in support, it is the experience driven foresight, the captain in training mentality that has been lost in this case, it is simply not the time to be training !!!

When we come to this level of mutual reliance we need to have a sense of airmanship that PTF or similar cannot give an f/o no matter how good they are.

Flogging the circuit on a nice day in Florida, while the wife and kids enjoy the pool is fine, so long as there is an inbuilt awareness as to what is the end result .. situational awareness, hearing the Lear calling up at 10 miles and adjusting without ATC intervention is part of that awareness.

I am fortunate to fly with people who could be in my seat tomorrow, because of a different and more enlightened culture, my job is to help them get there, as was the case for me... captains passing on the subletys of thought which does not appear in FCOM, in esscence protecting oneself and ones crew against circumstances and secondly, but only just, the legal ramifications of ones actions as interpeted through SOP and the management that has to support that structure.

Relevent experience for the job DOES count .. as a new f/o on a turboprop, with a brand new captain, home base, we had an adc1 fail at minima .. with no reference, flying a balistic path at that altitude, the captain was lost, as most of us would be !

I had had the experience to see the fail and switch as soon as I had visual reference .. we went around, stabilised the situation and the outcome was positive.

I don't say that we avoided an accident, but the P1 was having trouble, (was maxed out) and I did the best that I could to suppport them, that was the culture borne of experience.

That is the type of awareness that experience brings into the scenario when things go bad, and with respect, something that should not be expected of a 200 hour ex Jerez f/o no matter how capable in technical terms.

In most cases they would do the right thing at the right time, if they are fully aware, but to KNOW why they will do it is another matter.

Then again .... there plenty of reports where high hours and a cockpit gradient defeat what we are all trying to achieve.

Is there a perfect answer ? probably not.

I don't judge in this... but invite discussion.
Teddy Robinson is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2010, 07:01
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,188
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 5 Posts
PLEASE consider calling or writing to your regulatory authority … but not just to the “the authority.” Pick a name – prefereably, someone you know who works there
A short story re your suggestion. This scribe sent a carefully phrased document to the current head of the Australian regulator. The subject was automation dependancy and it's effect on basic flying skills. Examples were quoted from various agencies including accident reports. A solution was also offered to this well known problem.

The reply was straight forward and concise as one would expect from such an august appointment - never mind it was signed by a minion. It said there was no evidence that automation dependancy was a problem in Australia and that the relevant regulations ensured that basic flying skills were never compromised. In fact, the accent should be on more automation.
Yours faithfully and thank you for your interest etc.

It would be naive to think that the regulator cares what any pilot thinks is a good idea -and from experience, that includes ANY regulator.
Centaurus is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2010, 08:26
  #28 (permalink)  
Plumbum Pendular
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
including obtaining a type rating for their aircraft before being permitted to fly with passengers
Can somebody please explain this to me, coming from the UK I am obviously very closeted in my views but I, naively, would have thought that a type rating would have been a legal requirement???
fmgc is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2010, 08:45
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Can somebody please explain this to me, coming from the UK I am obviously very closeted in my views but I, naively, would have thought that a type rating would have been a legal requirement???
For FAA certificate holders, a type rating is only required to act as PIC. Not as SIC.

The FAA developed the "SIC Type Rating" as a nod to international requirements, but it's really not a type rating.
SNS3Guppy is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2010, 08:52
  #30 (permalink)  
Plumbum Pendular
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For FAA certificate holders, a type rating is only required to act as PIC. Not as SIC.
So what sort of aeroplane can you fly using this?
fmgc is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2010, 09:31
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
omg

For FAA certificate holders, a type rating is only required to act as PIC. Not as SIC.

The FAA developed the "SIC Type Rating" as a nod to international requirements, but it's really not a type rating.

what .. so I could just go climb aboard anything as an f/o having done a basic test ? if so that is frightening.
Teddy Robinson is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2010, 09:47
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
what .. so I could just go climb aboard anything as an f/o having done a basic test ? if so that is frightening.
If the regulation frightens you, so be it.

Read it for yourself.

§ 61.55 Second-in-command qualifications.

(a) A person may serve as a second-in-command of an aircraft type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or in operations requiring a second-in-command pilot flight crewmember only if that person holds:

(1) At least a private pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class rating; and

(2) An instrument rating or privilege that applies to the aircraft being flown if the flight is under IFR; and

(3) The appropriate pilot type rating for the aircraft unless the flight will be conducted as domestic flight operations within United States airspace.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may serve as a second-in-command of an aircraft type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or in operations requiring a second-in-command unless that person has within the previous 12 calendar months:

(1) Become familiar with the following information for the specific type aircraft for which second-in-command privileges are requested—

(i) Operational procedures applicable to the powerplant, equipment, and systems.

(ii) Performance specifications and limitations.

(iii) Normal, abnormal, and emergency operating procedures.

(iv) Flight manual.

(v) Placards and markings.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, performed and logged pilot time in the type of aircraft or in a flight simulator that represents the type of aircraft for which second-in-command privileges are requested, which includes—

(i) Three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop as the sole manipulator of the flight controls;

(ii) Engine-out procedures and maneuvering with an engine out while executing the duties of pilot in command; and

(iii) Crew resource management training.

(c) If a person complies with the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section in the calendar month before or the calendar month after the month in which compliance with this section is required, then that person is considered to have accomplished the training and practice in the month it is due.

(d) A person may receive a second-in-command pilot type rating for an aircraft after satisfactorily completing the second-in-command familiarization training requirements under paragraph (b) of this section in that type of aircraft provided the training was completed within the 12 calendar months before the month of application for the SIC pilot type rating. The person must comply with the following application and pilot certification procedures:

(1) The person who provided the training must sign the applicant's logbook or training record after each lesson in accordance with §61.51(h)(2) of this part. In lieu of the trainer, it is permissible for a qualified management official within the organization to sign the applicant's training records or logbook and make the required endorsement. The qualified management official must hold the position of Chief Pilot, Director of Training, Director of Operations, or another comparable management position within the organization that provided the training and must be in a position to verify the applicant's training records and that the training was given.

(2) The trainer or qualified management official must make an endorsement in the applicant's logbook that states “[Applicant's Name and Pilot Certificate Number] has demonstrated the skill and knowledge required for the safe operation of the [Type of Aircraft], relevant to the duties and responsibilities of a second in command.”

(3) If the applicant's flight experience and/or training records are in an electronic form, the applicant must present a paper copy of those records containing the signature of the trainer or qualified management official to an FAA Flight Standards District Office or Examiner.

(4) The applicant must complete and sign an Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application, FAA Form 8710–1, and present the application to an FAA Flight Standards District Office or to an Examiner.

(5) The person who provided the ground and flight training to the applicant must sign the “Instructor's Recommendation” section of the Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application, FAA Form 8710–1. In lieu of the trainer, it is permissible for a qualified management official within the organization to sign the applicant's FAA Form 8710–1.

(6) The applicant must appear in person at a FAA Flight Standards District Office or to an Examiner with his or her logbook/training records and with the completed and signed FAA Form 8710–1.

(7) There is no practical test required for the issuance of the “SIC Privileges Only” pilot type rating.

(e) A person may receive a second-in-command pilot type rating for the type of aircraft after satisfactorily completing an approved second-in-command training program, proficiency check, or competency check under subpart K of part 91, part 121, part 125, or part 135, as appropriate, in that type of aircraft provided the training was completed within the 12 calendar months before the month of application for the SIC pilot type rating. The person must comply with the following application and pilot certification procedures:

(1) The person who provided the training must sign the applicant's logbook or training record after each lesson in accordance with §61.51(h)(2) of this part. In lieu of the trainer, it is permissible for a qualified management official within the organization to sign the applicant's training records or logbook and make the required endorsement. The qualified management official must hold the position of Chief Pilot, Director of Training, Director of Operations, or another comparable management position within the organization that provided the training and must be in a position to verify the applicant's training records and that the training was given.

(2) The trainer or qualified management official must make an endorsement in the applicant's logbook that states “[Applicant's Name and Pilot Certificate Number] has demonstrated the skill and knowledge required for the safe operation of the [Type of Aircraft], relevant to the duties and responsibilities of a second in command.”

(3) If the applicant's flight experience and/or training records are in an electronic form, the applicant must provide a paper copy of those records containing the signature of the trainer or qualified management official to an FAA Flight Standards District Office, an Examiner, or an Aircrew Program Designee.

(4) The applicant must complete and sign an Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application, FAA Form 8710–1, and present the application to an FAA Flight Standards District Office or to an Examiner or to an authorized Aircrew Program Designee.

(5) The person who provided the ground and flight training to the applicant must sign the “Instructor's Recommendation” section of the Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application, FAA Form 8710–1. In lieu of the trainer, it is permissible for a qualified management official within the organization to sign the applicant's FAA Form 8710–1.

(6) The applicant must appear in person at an FAA Flight Standards District Office or to an Examiner or to an authorized Aircrew Program Designee with his or her logbook/training records and with the completed and signed FAA Form 8710–1.

(7) There is no practical test required for the issuance of the “SIC Privileges Only” pilot type rating.

(f) The familiarization training requirements of paragraph (b) of this section do not apply to a person who is:

(1) Designated and qualified as pilot in command under subpart K of part 91, part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter in that specific type of aircraft;

(2) Designated as the second in command under subpart K of part 91, part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter in that specific type of aircraft;

(3) Designated as the second in command in that specific type of aircraft for the purpose of receiving flight training required by this section, and no passengers or cargo are carried on the aircraft; or

(4) Designated as a safety pilot for purposes required by §91.109(b) of this chapter.

(g) The holder of a commercial or airline transport pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class rating is not required to meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section, provided the pilot:

(1) Is conducting a ferry flight, aircraft flight test, or evaluation flight of an aircraft's equipment; and

(2) Is not carrying any person or property on board the aircraft, other than necessary for conduct of the flight.

(h) For the purpose of meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, a person may serve as second in command in that specific type aircraft, provided:

(1) The flight is conducted under day VFR or day IFR; and

(2) No person or property is carried on board the aircraft, other than necessary for conduct of the flight.

(i) The training under paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section and the training, proficiency check, and competency check under paragraph (e) of this section may be accomplished in a flight simulator that is used in accordance with an approved training course conducted by a training center certificated under part 142 of this chapter or under subpart K of part 91, part 121 or part 135 of this chapter.

(j) When an applicant for an initial second-in-command qualification for a particular type of aircraft receives all the training in a flight simulator, that applicant must satisfactorily complete one takeoff and one landing in an aircraft of the same type for which the qualification is sought. This requirement does not apply to an applicant who completes a proficiency check under part 121 or competency check under subpart K, part 91, part 125, or part 135 for the particular type of aircraft.
SNS3Guppy is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2010, 18:35
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Actually the quoted FAA regulations, above, are accurate ... but only for non-airline operations. Here is a list of titles (you can research any of them if you care to) that are applicable to the training and operations requirements under the airline operations part of the US rules ... i.e., part 121:

Subpart N—Training Program

§ 121.400 Applicability and terms used.
§ 121.401 Training program: General.
§ 121.402 Training program: Special rules.
§ 121.403 Training program: Curriculum.
§ 121.404 Compliance dates: Crew and dispatcher resource management training.
§ 121.405 Training program and revision: Initial and final approval.
§ 121.406 Credit for previous CRM/DRM training.
§ 121.407 Training program: Approval of airplane simulators and other training devices.
§ 121.409 Training courses using airplane simulators and other training devices.
§ 121.411 Qualifications: Check airmen (airplane) and check airmen (simulator).
§ 121.412 Qualifications: Flight instructors (airplane) and flight instructors (simulator).
§ 121.413 Initial and transition training and checking requirements: Check airmen (airplane), check airmen (simulator).
§ 121.414 Initial and transition training and checking requirements: flight instructors (airplane), flight instructors (simulator).
§ 121.415 Crewmember and dispatcher training requirements.
§ 121.417 Crewmember emergency training.
§ 121.418 Differences training: Crewmembers and dispatchers.
§ 121.419 Pilots and flight engineers: Initial, transition, and upgrade ground training.
§ 121.420 Flight navigators: Initial and transition ground training.
§ 121.421 Flight attendants: Initial and transition ground training.
§ 121.422 Aircraft dispatchers: Initial and transition ground training.
§ 121.424 Pilots: Initial, transition, and upgrade flight training.
§ 121.425 Flight engineers: Initial and transition flight training.
§ 121.426 Flight navigators: Initial and transition flight training.
§ 121.427 Recurrent training.
§ 121.429 [Reserved]


Subpart O—Crewmember Qualifications

§ 121.431 Applicability.
§ 121.432 General.
§ 121.433 Training required.
§ 121.434 Operating experience, operating cycles, and consolidation of knowledge and skills.
§ 121.437 Pilot qualification: Certificates required.
§ 121.438 Pilot operating limitations and pairing requirements.
§ 121.439 Pilot qualification: Recent experience.
§ 121.440 Line checks.
§ 121.441 Proficiency checks.
§ 121.443 Pilot in command qualification: Route and airports.
§ 121.445 Pilot in command airport qualification: Special areas and airports.
§ 121.447 [Reserved]
§ 121.453 Flight engineer qualifications.
§§ 121.455-121.459 [Reserved]
AirRabbit is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2010, 18:41
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The airline industry really needs to move from such outdate, prescriptive regulation based training to more effective competence based training.

Who really believes that the FAA can devise an effective pilot training programme?
Shell Management is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2010, 19:27
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Shell Management
The airline industry really needs to move from such outdate, prescriptive regulation based training to more effective competence based training.

Who really believes that the FAA can devise an effective pilot training programme?
It’s not the FAA, or any regulatory authority for that matter, who has that responsibility – as it is correctly placed on those who train and use crewmembers in passenger service. However, with all due respect, each authority DOES have a responsibility to provide the basic regulations that all airlines and airline training programs have to follow – and they will retain that responsibility until the laws of the respective countries are revised.

Additionally, the concept of “competence” based training being a “new” idea, is not all together accurate. There are no pilots that I am aware of who get a license to fly from any regulator after having merely completed their required training. All must pass a proficiency (read: competency) check. If the competence is there, the license is issued, if not it is back to the training house.

Now, I’m fully aware that some (perhaps many) regulators require a specified number of training hours before the proficiency (competency) check is to be administered. However, the FAA has, for quite some time, had in their regulatory structure a caveat that says, and says quite clearly, that completing the “programmed hours” isn’t necessary if the pilot has been determined to be proficient. In fact the direct quote is:
§121.409(c) The programmed hours of flight training set forth in this subpart do not apply if the training program for the airplane type includes—
(1) A course of pilot training in an airplane simulator as provided in §121.424(d); or
(2) A course of flight engineer training in an airplane simulator or other training device as provided in §121.425(c).
AirRabbit is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2010, 20:14
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Delude yoiurself.
Shell Management is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2010, 03:38
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Florida winter Utah summer
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Outstanding

Outstanding ! Now I might be able to ride in an RJ jumpseat without hearing the word "Dude" used in every sentence.
Airspeedintervention is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2010, 13:30
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Shell Management
Delude yoiurself.
Perhaps I've misunderstood your exceptionally short commet. Am I to understand that supposedly you "know," and therefore anyone who offers an alternative is thereby "deluded?" Or perhaps you believe that I've mis-read the FAA regulation posted? And, as for the regulator not knowing how to put together a training proram, perhaps you would be so kind as to lead us to the place where we can see what training programs the regulators are attempingto push down our throats? Without trying to sound terribly argumentative, and with full acknowledgment that competent disagreement with anything I may offer is something I consider at least potentially valuable, why is it that you believe I or anyone else here is "deluded" about such things?

Last edited by AirRabbit; 4th Oct 2010 at 16:06.
AirRabbit is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2010, 13:32
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Type rating or not, 1500 - 4000h or not, that is not the question, nor the answer.
Reality tells it all.

The MD11 was the first airliner proving to be too difficult to handle manually by too many of it's pilots.
The Big Buses now start showing us that automation is not the salvation either, too many pilots not able to finger their way out of design flaws.

The FAA paper is a good start, but it misses out on thousands of FOs who have already made it to the left seat, with the same lack of skills. Additionally it does not deal with the flaws in automation.
Maybe the lawsuit into AF447 can start changing that.

Still hoping for improvement ....
Gretchenfrage is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2010, 17:02
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Er, in the UK all FOs have type ratings. What's the big deal?
doubledolphins is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.