This always makes me laugh.Attitude/aptitude can somehow offset lack of experience?Airmanship is everything.Nothing else truly matters in flying.

I know it will offend some, (we've already had one give us his no less valuable than my views on this thread) but RAT 5 says it all in one sentence:I know one 777 captain who thought it was an achievement when he told me that he had made it to being a widebody, international captain without once in his career having to do a diversion.

The first time you're really, really afraid in an aeroplane - and it will happen to most of us at least once - should not with you in charge and 350 people down the back. Such arguments mean nothing to beancounters, but they're valid.

It's not the amount of time, it's the quality of the training. I've seen plenty of high time instructors who certainly had no business working with a cadet program. We had cadets directly onto the A-300-600 and 90% of them were excellent, much better than I was when I had their flight time.

IMHO, it is the instructors who need to be screened extremely carefully. The cockpit is no place for ego. It's alot of work to train a cadet, they are stressed to the max, unsure of themselves, and don't need a smartass check airman who runs the cockpit like a little despot.

Aviation safety depends on the quality and ability of the training cadre.

That sounds like a very wise observation

Everyone knows that the new guys have undergone an acceptable training program but flying is a lot more than pushing buttons and reading an approach plate.... the really tough side can only come with real life experience.

So let's reintroduce a 'second officer' program .... why should the pax down the back be treated to a crew of one decent pilot and a bag carrier unable to contribute anything more than a passable knowledge of systems. The idea of a two crew cockpit is to double the safety factor not halve the workload...

At the end of a tough day when fatigue is higher than the workload it's not a systems failure or a scruffy approach that's likely to bring the whole lot down ... more likely it's attempting an approach in the first place that would have been wiser to avoid... and who's going to pursuade the guy in the left seat that his judgement is off the beam at that time ? The wannabee who's spent his 1000hrs circling a grass airfield on sunny days ?.... Good CRM requires that each of the crew has a respect for the other... All too often the guy on the left (who's capable of poor judgement from time to time) finds himself in the toughest situations flying effectively a single crew operation.

70% of accidents are attributable to human factors... that's the number we have to focus on and CRM... (which everyone is superb at demonstrating in the classroom but somehow all too often forget how to spell in real life situations) depends on constant re-assesment of a dynamic situation by experienced crew.... we're shortchanging both the captains and the pax with anything less than a reasonable amount of experience in the right hand seat.

It's like porn, hard to define but you know it when you see it. It might be easier to define what isn't a seasoned aviator. Anyone who hasn't a few winters of crap wx, deicing and all that goes with it. Someone who hasn't been around 50K CB's in a summer and don't know the nuances of operating around them. Pilots who don't know how to use the radar to figure out if it's rocks or storms ahead as they descend in to Denver from the east. Someone who hasn't anything but a book to fall back on when things go pear shaped. The list goes on and on. Nothing replaces time in the seat.


I've flown with plenty of multi thousand hour FO's who fit the above description. I've always wondered why when this discussion comes up it's intimated that experienced guys have lousy attitudes.

The FAA Head may well be concerned about cockpit experience - with good reason!

Cockpit experience is a small part of the total equation which leads to an experienced first officer leading to a competent captain.

What is missed is the way that training captains are very often selected from the most experienced personnel with military backgrounds.

I don't question that the miltary spend a fortune on training pilots, but that alone does not make them the best; many civil trained pilots have equally good training skills which generally are currently under utilised, and usually not recognised!

No, it is not. And I can prove it.

Go to any operator whose crew force is made up of “experienced pilots” (unfortunately easy in this economy), and for this experiment let us call “experience” 3 or more sets of seasons for the area. Ride around their system in the jumpseat and observe some checkrides. You will not be able to determine any individual’s training background based on their performance. You will be able to asses their basic talents and the degree to which they apply themselves to their profession, but you will not be able to accurately describe their first 500 hours.

Recent training is important in that it hones the edge of the blade, but it does not make the sword. Talent, effort and experience do that.

I do concede that if I were forced to hire very low time pilots I would give a great deal of consideration to their training. But I would prefer not to do that. I would prefer to hire experienced pilots by looking at their abilities, focus and background. And in the later case a varied background is preferable, since the resulting experience is broader.

It is very possible today in the United States to put your family on a Part 25 airplane being operated under Part 121 in which neither member of the crew has diverted. In which neither member of the crew has made a real approach to minimums. In which neither member of the crew has executed a real life missed approach. Now throw in FZDZ. Training, with its sterile and choreographed environment, does not fill these kinds of gaps.

Drat those sluggards who changed the rules to allow electronic facsimiles of checks to keep me from continuing to fly cancelled ones across the frozen wastes of the Northern Midwest (in a LOT of FZDZ) in a clapped-out MU-2...

While it is true that the military does spend a handful on training, the part that has to be recognized is that it is very good training – and I think is the basis for the ICAO adopted Multi-Crew Pilot License (MPL) approach now in beta testing at several locations around the globe.

We’re regularly faced with the famous (or infamous) “you-can’t-go-there-until-you’ve-been-there-twice” story. Everyone would prefer to fly with someone who’s had all the experiences, done all the diversions, experienced all the weather phenomena, etc. The problem is that every pilot who has ever sat in a pilot’s seat, did so for a first time somewhere. The same holds true for each of the experiences gained, the diversions flown, and the weather experienced … there is always a first notch on the belt before there is a lot of experience able to fit under that belt … in doing anything. Some of the earlier posts on this and other threads on this forum periodically bring out that it’s an individual kind of thing. Anyone can suck it up and pretend … fake the walk, mumble the talk, and depend on mother nature and the airplane and avionics manufacturers to keep him out of trouble. But to become truly “good,” one has to recognize his/her own limitations, admit that the airplane has limitations, and recognize that it is a far sight better to never exceed either. One has to be inquisitive, interested, and eager to learn … and then be willing to do so.

While I’ll be the first to admit that training alone cannot (and should not) be counted on as a complete substitute for experience … I also have to recognize that experience in doing something the wrong way, the long way, or the headstrong way is a well trodden path to less than desirable outcomes. Here is where proper and complete training can make all the difference in the world. For example, would you rather your first officer be the guy with 1800 hours and an ATP or the guy with 250 hours, commercial multi-engine, and instrument rated? All else being equal … probably the ATP holder right? But, what if that ATP holder has 200 hours of flight time as a pilot and 1600 hours of light, single engine, instructor time (logged as “pilot-in-command”); and the 250 hour guy is a graduate of a program designed to bring “ab initio” pilots (zero flight time persons) through something like an MPL program or the programs offered by the “airline training academies” seen flourishing all over the sunshine states in the US, designed to train airline First Officers? I know which I would take.

(Please note, I have a job, I am not bitter, nor do I have any other heavy cutlery to grind)

The ab initio guy with 250 directed hours may well know more about systems and his specific aircraft. He will have been trained to deal with things to the company training standards.

The guy with 1600 instructor hours will likely have minimal CRM skills, little relevant "big airplane" experience and a bunch of bad habits.

On the other hand, if I had to pick one of the above who would be most likely to think that pulling against a stick shaker was a good idea, it would have to be pilot number one.

There is something to be said for demonstrating your ability to not end up dead in unpredictable situations over a period of time.

Maybe, if we could invent a lethal simulator....:)

I fought my way into a position at my first airline with 5500 hrs with lots of jet and pic jet time. Some 4 engine. I felt very fortunate to be lucky enough to be hired. I can not imagine a pilot with 250 hrs to be able to handle the responsibilities of flying passengers in an airliner without a lot of supervision from the captain making his job a lot harder.

You can find a lot of fully qualified people for the right seat if you offer them descent pay. If you want to get off cheap you might be sorry. We just saw one example in Buffalo.

I would take the ATP. IMO you put too little value on instructor time.

And I have flown with the products from the "airline training academies". Some of them are very good, but too many got their ratings based on Dad's ability to pay. Spoiled little rich kids is, unfortunately, too often an accurate stereotype. So again, I would take the guy who scraped to get his time – he probably actually likes his work, is interested in it and has a passion for it.

But this continues to be a distraction. The real issue is not low time pilots in the right seat, it is low time pilots sitting next to inexperienced Captains. That does not happen in Europe and did not happen in the United States during the late 1960s; but it is happening right now in the United States regional industry. And it is the direct result of the major airlines going for the lowest bidder.

Not paying your pilots liveable wages means you will get the least qualified desperate to build their time. It is a recipe for disaster because as soon as these underqualified people become captains they will have underqualified copilots. When the captain gets enough experience he will join a real airline and the cycle repeats itself to infinity. Greed by the regionals has caused this and the FAA has to intervene.

New rules
 

Gentlemen.... and since it seems that the conversation has drifted towards the new discussion "CPL/MPL", please alow me to add my two cents worth of an opinion.

Many have strongly defended the "traditional" way into an airline jet's cockpit by building thousand's of hours on single (some multiple) engined a/c. And then, what?

They have to get a TR over a, perhaps, two or three week conversion course done, most of the time, in a simulator.....

Will they have more experience on the a/c type than the MPL rated pilots who have done a couple of hundred hours on it already??

To cut it short, I leave you all with an extract of the ICAO FAQ on the subject:

Quote:

---

http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#31

Multi-Crew Pilot Licence (MPL)

What is the MPL?

The MPL allows a pilot to exercise the privileges of a co-pilot in a commercial air transportation on multi-crew aeroplanes. It provides the aviation community with an opportunity to train pilots directly for co-pilot duties. It is a new licence that has been introduced in addition to the existing pilot licences defined in Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing.
The licence focuses on ab initio airline pilot training. MPL training and assessment will be competency-based and involve a multi-crew environment and threat and error management from the onset. It provides for greater use of flight simulation training devices and include mandatory upset training. At this stage, only aeroplanes are considered for this new licence. The details of the requirements for the licence are contained in Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing and in the Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Training (PANS-TRG). These documents outline the minimum international Standard for the implementation of the MPL by any State; they can be purchased directly from ICAO through the Document Sales Unit.

Will the MPL be recognized by Contracting States?

As a licence defined by ICAO the MPL will be recognized by all ICAO Contracting States even by those that may decide not to establish an MPL as a licence within their own States. More details on the recognition of licences by other States can be found on the FAQ on "International recognition of flight crew licences".

What is a multi-crew aeroplane?

It is an aeroplane that requires a flight crew of at least two pilots. One of them is the pilot-in-command (the captain) and the other is the co-pilot (or first officer). All jet air transport aeroplanes and the vast majority of turbine powered air transport aircraft and business jet are multi-crew aeroplanes. The definition in Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing states that it is: "an aircraft required to be operated with a co-pilot as specified in the flight manual or by the air operator certificate."

Do I have to hold a MPL to be a co-pilot on a muti-crew aeroplane?

No, the co-pilot on a multi-crew aeroplane can hold either a MPL or a CPL endorsed with an instrument rating and a type rating on a multi-crew aircraft.

What are the differences between the CPL and the MPL?

For the purposes of operating multi-crew aircraft, the privileges of a MPL are equivalent to those of CPL endorsed with an instrument rating and a type rating on a multi-crew aircraft. However, and because the MPL is geared toward operation of multi-crew airplane, an MPL pilot cannot generally fly on single pilot aeroplane without meeting additional requirements. For example, MPL holders cannot exercise the privileges of a CPL and instrument ratings on single pilot aeroplane without meeting specific actual flight time and flight instruction requirements.
A number of MPL courses may be a modification of the current JAA frozen ATPL or the Transport Canada and FAA CPL/Multi-engine training, but it is expected that the majority will follow the guidance proposed in the Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Training (PANS-TRG) document.

What are the minimum flight hours required for the MPL?

The ICAO Standard for the MPL specifies 240 hours as the minimum number of actual and simulated flight hours performing the functions of the pilot flying and the pilot non-flying. However, the Standard does not specify the breakdown between actual and simulated flight hours and thus allow part of the training curriculum that was traditionally conducted on aeroplane to be done on flight simulation training devices (FSTDs). However, there is a requirement that the applicant meets all the actual flying time for a private pilot licence plus additional actual flying time in instrument, night flying and upset recovery.

Why was the MPL established?

The MPL was established to respond to the growing demand in the aviation training community that felt that the current regulatory regime that dictated a large number of flying hours in solo and on a smaller aircraft was not the most efficient and safe way to train pilots for copilot duties on jet transport aircraft.
Further, there was some perceived negative training in the apprenticeship model that was first developed for flight training in the post second world war era. A number of training organizations and airlines were adamant that modern training techniques and research into the use of modern training devices such as flight simulation training devices needed to be recognized within the ICAO licensing structure. The ICAO Air Navigation Commission formed a Flight Crew Licensing and Training Panel to explore the options and opportunities to address the shortcomings of some current licensing requirements. The competency-based concept and the MPL licence were the outcome of that panel's deliberations.

How can the MPL be implemented?

ICAO has developed the Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Training (PANS-TRG) document to support the implementation of the MPL and will monitor developments in this area through a proof of concept programme. This programme will involve stakeholders from regulatory bodies and industry. In addition, an Air Training Organization must meet the prescribed organizational standards which are also outlined in Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing and the Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Training (PANS-TRG).

What is the status of the MPL regulatory provisions?


The ICAO Council adopted the provisions related to the MPL as part of Amendment 167 to Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing on 10 March 2006. The new provisions will become applicable on 23 November 2006.

---

Many have mentioned the financial/investment by the operators aspect. But what we have to be concerned with is: SAFETY!!

As a new comer, who is more competent to fly the new generation a/c as a FO? The multi-thousand hour GA pilot (who paid 15KUS$ for is three week TR) or the MPLr (who was trained during 12 to 16 months and dished out 50KUS$)?

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

And don't forget that the MPLs can only be trained if sponsored by an airline and on its own SOPs.

Something I'm against, because I think they should be trained on the manufacturer's SOPs and then be able to seek employment in any airline, who then should make them aware of its own SOPs before hiring them. If they failed to follow the operators SOPs, then invite them to leave as not suitable for the position.

That is what ICAO and the regulators (FAA, JAA, etc. etc.) should be made aware of.

Cheers to all!!!

Babbit and Costello
 

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP RANDY!!!!

The union you used to head up would have twenty year pilots JUNIOR to 7 year pilots...and you have the nerve asking us to mentor for free.

HA!

I hope you read this randy. You are a jerk. IF YOU HAD any undercarriage, you would demand that the ATP ticket had more hours and all airline crewmembers had ATP tickets.

Its all about money randy...too bad you won't really speak up.

I know lots of experienced pilots who have left the USA to get jobs overseas paying at least 100k a year with lots of time off.

they would be glad to come back to colgan air if they could be well paid and well treated.

Mentoring...HA...the only thing I can think of in flying with the MENTOR is what the trainer was called in the navy that was built out of leftover bonanza parts.

Contact me anytime Randy!

The new MPL might have more intimate familiarity with one airline's procedures on one airplane. Other than that, he is less prepared to do what is necessary in the event of an emergency. He will likely have little "air sense," decision-making experience, or ability to deal with unscripted scenarios.

Further, the MPL is only a temporary band-aid fix to a perceived pilot shortage problem. He will not have the credentials to become a Captain, so his investment will leave him strapped to the right seat with no upgrade or transfer path until he completes his ATPL. Since he will not have the requisite solo and PIC time for even a CPL or Instrument rating, he will have another large investment to make.

Until they changes the requirements.....................Again!

BR.

The only problem with choosing pilot #1 on the basis that he or she would certainly know not to fight a stick pusher, I’d remind you that such an instructor would likely never have flown an airplane with a stick pusher until he or she qualified on the aircraft operated by the airline – just like the Colgan pilots.

I’d call your attention to US military flight training – graduation at just over a year with just over 200 hours of flight time. Of course some go on to fighters, but many go on to transport aircraft – some of which fly the self-loading cargo – and they seem to do reasonably OK.

Not at all. Some instructor time is very valuable … but I’ve seen more than my fair share who take an instructor’s job simply to log the flight time – which can mount up fairly quickly, leaving a relatively inexperienced pilot with an ATP. Also, I happen to share your concerns about the only folks winding up in the right seats of airline cockpits being the sons and daughters of only the very rich. Not that all such youngsters are bad apples, but it does cut down on the universe of potentially good pilot candidates. Of course, there are exceptions on both sides of the fence.

The fact is that we see today may very well be due to airlines simply wanting to pay the least they can get away with … and perhaps if those wages were bumped to a more livable rate there would be no shortage of pilot applicants … but all applicants aren’t necessarily good candidates, while, surely it does open the universe a bit. In the research I’ve seen … both regarding the ages of the US pilots (now postponed for 5 years) and their pending retirements ... and the increase in airframes the major manufacturers are touting for the next 15 years – even if the current economic slowdown continues and a portion of the “new” machines will go to replace older, less efficient machines … there is still a significant potential for the airline industry in the US to need something like 400 pilots a month, every month, for a 12 year period. Sorry, but if that is anything close to accurate, the viable candidates that emerge from the weeds for a better salary won’t begin to cover that need.

In a recent “beta test” conducted by the Boeing Training organization, Alteon, in Australia, ab initio pilots were trained using MPL and the average student completing the course completed with between 380 and 450 hours of training – note training – of which only about 50 – 60 hours were in an airplane. When placed in the cockpits of airliners, a good share of Captains had rather high praise for the education, knowledge, attitude, and willingness to learn demonstrated by these recent graduates … but the interesting part is that the competence of these graduates was universally noted as being quite acceptable. I would still have a lot of questions about the differences between the posited number (240 – 250 hours) and the reality (380 – 450 hours) as well as the training continuity and what, if any, other licenses were issued. But the fact remains that the first such “beta test” seems to show promising results.