Racing to the bottom.
When margins are high, a company can afford to be kind to its employees. Think of nap stations at Google and free lunches at Facebook. Airlines suffer from about the lowest margins in any industry. Once an SLF has decided on the class he can afford, it is simply a matter of finding the lowest fare. Since he knows travel by air is a horrible experience, he certainly will not want to overpay for it. (Only a handful of airlines have a reputation that warrants a slight premium, but some of them seem to be working hard to lose it.) In any event, fierce competition leads inexorably to the so-called race to the bottom. But one has to take care what motives one ascribes to airline management. Contrary to popular belief, managers are not hatchet-wielding robots. They have kids and lives, and go on their vacations by air. They were not born with an innate compulsion to cut costs. It is almost certainly the case that your typical airline manager (and senior executive, too) would like to increase training time for pilots. So why don't they just do it? The most important issue for management is not the absolute cost of an input into their system, but the relative cost of that input, "relative" meaning compared to their competitors. The race is not so much to the "bottom", but to the level set out in the "rules". No manager could possibly progress in his company if he incurred costs greater than the rules permit. If competing airlines do not have to do more than the rules require, why should we? Blaming the airlines is not a solution for inadequate training. The solution is to change the rules. Surprising as it might seem, companies often don't complain (very hard, anyway) about a change in the rules, just as long as it affects their competitors equally. Something similar is happening right now at the ICAO meetings in Montreal. Regulators from around the world are trying to reach a consensus on minimum experience for flight crew. At present, the only yardstick is total time. The huge benefit of using that yardstick is that it is so easy to measure. The regulators are looking hard for a better yardstick, that takes into account the "quality" of the hours, or the conditions under which they were earned, and so on. If the regulators succeed, their consensus will become the new rule/bottom towards which all airlines will gravitate. Setting new rules is a political issue, whether the rules apply at the national level or the international level. YYZjim PS. A poster in a related forum described how Boeing fired a group of senior engineers, telling them their skills weren't needed any longer because the business of making airplanes had become a mature business. Mature businesses control their costs with care, and also race down to the rules/bottom. In fact, that pretty much sums up the basic problem with the MAX. Boeing designed it to meet the rules, and not one little bit more. In my opinion, Boeing is wrong to think their business is mature. Their airplanes may produce a commodity -- air travel -- but the airplanes themselves are not a commodity. |
Originally Posted by Banana Joe
(Post 10512971)
MPL is still something new, I wouldn't be surprised the first batch of MPL holders are reaching the requirements at the moment.
https://www.pprune.org/interviews-jo...ht=MPL+upgrade |
Originally Posted by CargoOne
(Post 10513093)
A CV with 1500 hrs in Cessna in Europe will be considered a joke and go straight to the trash bin. Most of pilots with that much of irrelevant experience would struggle to adopt and live up to the airline requirements, same goes for the fast jet pilots. Not what many would like to hear but true.
Myself, I had around 1200 hours when I got my job on the 737. Around 500 hours instructing in 172s, a couple of hundred instructing in Cubs and Tiger Moths, and the rest larking about in the Cub, Moth and various other ancient aerial contraptions. Would not have gone without that experience for any amount of money. That includes partial power loss due to a stuck valve, fuel leak, nearly spinning in from low altitude due to miscommunication wih a student, and so on. One day, some tiny part of it just might stand me in good steed when Murphy comes to visit. Oh, and nobody has yet complained about me not adapting or living up ;) |
Originally Posted by ph-sbe
(Post 10513230)
To qualify for an ATP, one needs:
So yeah, 1500 hours of a C150 won't make you qualified for an ATP. |
Originally Posted by tomuchwork
(Post 10513247)
...I have seen very experienced pilots being "crappy", on the other hand I had some excellent guys with only 300 hours. It all depends on the individual. Flying is not something someone can "learn"(even some P2F schools are trying to sell exactly this) - no, you need to have it in you(have it "in your ass" if you want). That is why modern aviation is in my eyes very unsafe - everyone tries, many fail, still a lot who are not supposed to make it into airliner cockpits...
...Experience nowadays is replaced with VERY strong SOP's. The problem is - SOP cannot cover all possible problems one may experience in aviation. In my opinion, it’s not the worldwide pilot experience which is too low, it’s the worldwide quality which is too low. Cadets, FOs, captains, training quality, ... The length of training and it’s quality is reduced to the bare minimum required to save costs. I've done 2 full type ratings for the same type in the last 12 years and the second time, it consisted of about half of the sim sessions from the first type rating (different company). The other half of the sim sessions were replaced by a procedure trainer which looked like Microsoft Flight Simulator with touchscreens, focusing on procedures and automation. The first type rating had only 3 sessions in a procedure trainer and all the rest was in a FFS. That must have been too expensive for my current company, where I can see a strong dependence on procedures and automation to compensate for the lower level of experience and training. |
Beyond a certain point, hours are a poor proxy for measuring quality and experience. Some pilots stop learning at 100 hours, and some never stop learning. Trying to figure out which is which probably requires more effort than most hiring departments wish to give. |
Originally Posted by Intruder
(Post 10512574)
AFAIK, still no REAL path to Captain form the MPL...
|
Originally Posted by cappt
(Post 10513210)
Who are the lucky souls who get fly with them when they're at 300/100? News reports have the Ethiopian FO with 361 hrs TT and 207 hrs in the 737. That meant he started flying the 737 with 154 hrs TT. From wikipedia "The first officer, Ahmed Nur Mohammod Nur, 25, was a recent graduate from the airline's academy with 361 flight hours logged, including 207 hours on the Boeing 737." |
[QUOTE=tomuchwork;10513247]Controversial discussion.
. This was even more complicated when soley based on conventional navigation, nowadays everybody flies the magenta line, so buhu. AFAIK departures in the US are mainly flown on (radar)headings(correct me if this is not the case anymore). If someone is not able to fly a complex SID in raw data it is barely legit to call them "best pilots"(which might apply for 90% of modern pilots to be honest). [QUOTE} The majority are radar vectors. But it's not uncommon to fly RNP or SIDs that have turns, climbs, and restrictions on them in the U.S. LGA, DCA, LAX, DFW, ATL, all have non radar vector departures. Those are some of the busiest U.S. airports. Add in S. America, Europe, or Asia flying and having to fly SIDs or RNP departures is something U.S. line pilots see often enough. |
Originally Posted by cappt
(Post 10513210)
Who are the lucky souls who get fly with them when they're at 300/100? Unfortunately most airlines do not train to competency now days, they train to certification. As long as they have the legal paperwork they don't care. |
Better airplanes don’t make better pilots. No amount of training can make up for the experience you don’t get when nothing goes wrong, or the lack of essential cool when it does.Some people should not be pilots, just as some should not be policemen or politicians, and in an industry that can no longer pick and choose, technology has to prevail sooner rather than later. The airplanes, in spite of the current MCAS problem, keep improving, as the quality and quantity of pilots falls behind. We have not hit a homer since the Hudson, and that may have been the last inning of a bygone era. Strange as it may seem, the day you can’t tell a good pilot from a mediocre one is the day the airplane goes solo.
|
MPL Flight Managers?
I have followed the various threads concerning pilot competence with interest, although I'm just a low time non transport pilot used to be. It's my impression that many jurisdictions are now qualifying first officers with MPL training and that the MPL is based mostly on procedures and simulator time, with as little as 30-40 hours in a primary trainer cockpit. I guess this fits in with the new class of transport category aircraft that are highly automated; however, I wonder if such training gives the student any "feel" for an aircraft and its very delicate balancing act called "flight". I've been searching the internet for information on the MPL and encountered this on the AviationKnowledge website:
"Highlights of MPL""The Multi-Crew Pilot License programme can produce co-pilot in 240 hours, of which 210 hours is in simulators.This training programme can be completed in 45 weeks as compared to 18 months to 2 years in the current existing system. Introduced in late 2006, Multi-Crew Pilot License, has been driven to success by the cost and speed effectiveness." I also found this rather interesting quote on the Patria website: "In MPL training actual flight hours will be complemented with high quality simulation training in the A320 cockpit environment. Flying has become more and more flight management and MPL addresses directly to these issues." Are we now training up a generation of "flight managers" whose skill set is comprised primarily of button pushing, knob twisting and occasional lever displacement? Cheers, Grog |
I think it is very important to make a distinction here between technical knowledge and that fuzzy thing that is sometimes called “airmanship.” Given the right person, I don’t think that it would be that hard to make a low time pilot reasonably proficient in the relatively narrow set of tasks that are required for a particular aircraft type and a particular operation. As long as everything goes according to script and the problems fits within whatever has been anticipated and covered in the manual then they’ll probably do fine when crewed with an experienced Captain. I see two potential problems. When that Captain himself has issues (these guys are out there), then the low-time FO may not know enough to know the Captain is having issues. He may just think the guy has a few quirks and doesn’t feel comfortable speaking up. I think some of this may have come into play with the Ethiopian crash. Next, flying doesn’t always go according to the script, and when you get off script it may not be obvious what the answer is. It has been said that good judgment comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgement. In the old days, a newish pilot would go out and excercise just enough bad judgement to hopefully gain some valuable experience and would do so in something that wasn’t carrying 100+ passengers. What I’m saying is no matter how well you know the aircraft, procedures, or regulations, there is always an element of knowledge that simply comes from doing the job for a number of years.
|
You are right on. (Rarife #11). I can identify only one group that benefits from the 1500 hour rule in the US and that is the senior pilots at ALPA who are adept at lobbying Congress (that passed the law concerned). I assume they wanted to make themselves more valuable (and get more money as a result) by tightening up the supply. I hope they did not mean it to go this far but it has and the damage is far-reaching and extensive. As usual, the supply of pilots will be cyclic and because the rise in demand has been meteoric, the drop will also be such. As so many smaller companies go bankrupt there will suddenly be no jobs.
It might be a good time to enter the field, but if so, better be quick! |
Originally Posted by CargoOne
(Post 10513093)
A CV with 1500 hrs in Cessna in Europe will be considered a joke and go straight to the trash bin. Most of pilots with that much of irrelevant experience would struggle to adopt and live up to the airline requirements, same goes for the fast jet pilots. Not what many would like to hear but true.
|
Originally Posted by FlyingStone
(Post 10512608)
MPL holder can after achieving 1500hrs, including 500hr PICUS (which can be done during line flying by captain signing the logbook) proceed to their ATPL skill test in the sim. If they pass, they've got exactly the same licence as any other ATPL holder, just that it is restricted to multi-pilot operations, unless further single-pilot training is done.
The article should be named "American pilots are the best". Hours add to experience, yes. But 700hr pilot with 500hr on type will generally be better than 1501hr pilot with 1h on type. I wouldn't bet on that, the "modern" euro-style of zero-to-hero has put lots of pilots in flight decks that can read checklists and do memory items...their ability to physically wrestle an errant aircraft, or sort their way through a problem that was not of a part of their curriculum is another matter...AF 442 classic example |
Originally Posted by ironbutt57
(Post 10514484)
I wouldn't bet on that, the "modern" euro-style of zero-to-hero has put lots of pilots in flight decks that can read checklists and do memory items...their ability to physically wrestle an errant aircraft, or sort their way through a problem that was not of a part of their curriculum is another matter...AF 442 classic example
|
Then you have a recently graduated Cessna 172 trained cadet now in the right hand seat of a twin jet transport nervously saying to his captain "I don't like flying in cloud" as they fly through cirrus. And to think he is second in command of a big jet transport. If the captain has an "event" and keels over, it doesn't take much imagination to guess what happens to the aircraft.
Fortunately statistics are kind to them both. |
Originally Posted by ironbutt57
(Post 10514484)
I wouldn't bet on that, the "modern" euro-style of zero-to-hero has put lots of pilots in flight decks that can read checklists and do memory items...their ability to physically wrestle an errant aircraft, or sort their way through a problem that was not of a part of their curriculum is another matter...AF 442 classic example
|
Originally Posted by dr dre
(Post 10514536)
I think you mean AF447, but wasn’t it two American pilots with previous light aircraft “real flying experience” who did the exact same thing on Colgan 3407....? |
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:16. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.