Long-term Prognosis

[Faustino]

Forgive me a long first post here, please...

I've been doing a lot of thinking recently about the present state of play in air transport safety and likely effects of some influences upon the pilot workforce. In particular, I've been folllowing the recent IATA findings.

There's not a lot of good news on this site or elsewhere about employment as a professional pilot. I don't mean the prospects for those seeking work, I mean the way in which those working as flight deck crew feel that they are managed, rewarded, rested, and generally made to feel valued.

In recent years, there have been some reasonable steps forward towards improved safety, though these have often centred on technological solutions to known problems. Some have brought their own difficulties too: the Lake Constance mid-air would not have occurred without TCAS, but we don't know how many mid-airs it has prevented. The regulatory framework is coming under the spotlight more with the possibility of greater regulation of matters which have, until now, been at the discretion of the aircraft crew.

I am concerned that, as some parts of the safety framework move in a positive manner, the job of the professional aviator will be less attractive to able, intelligent, individuals (of whatever race, creed, culture, social standing), and we will find the average pilot to be a less effective problem-solver, less able to identify and arrest a developing error chain, less able to handle an aircraft accurately at a time of stress, and so on.

Crucially, will this, in the long term, mean more accidents?

In the short term, some able pilots may perform less well as a result of their demotivation. It is theoretically possible that some pilots may, for example, feel so dis-heartened, that they develop 'problems' which seriously affect their functioning in and out of work.

I acknowledge that I am dealing with many intangible factors, theorising from an individual perspective, and doing a little 'blue sky' thinking, if you like.

Am I wide of the mark? May we discuss?

[Son Of Piltdown]

I don't think you are wide of the mark Faustino.

The job has changed in nature quite a bit in recent years. Locked cockpit doors, management pressure in new forms, more intensive working patterns, less variety of aircraft to fly, more issues to dealwith.

It is the intangible factors that have added up to change the nature of the job in signifigant and subtle ways.

I don't believe it is long term career anymore. Who would want, for example, to spend thirty years flying for a low cost carrier?

Alternatively how about a career on the Airbus?

The complexities of operational problems will remain for agile minds to solve under pressure of time. However, my guess is that more discerning individuals will see it as a poor career option in terms of intensity of work and lifestyle.

Pilots in their thirties and forties will report back to youngsters with increasingly less enthusiasm. This will have an impact on the type of individual applying for sponsorship etc.

Further to that I think the airlines will increasingly structure the career to favour the younger pilot. Training payback schemes, earlier commands and moving on to other careers earlier will have an effect on career longevity.

You have raised a good debate; lets keep it going.

[Faustino]

Thanks for the response, SoP.

I should have mentioned, that my concern is that we have been striving to take the next step forward in safety, as we did in the past when the industry moved from pistons to turboprops to jets, for example, and that this next order-of-magnitude improvement is proving elusive.

I wonder if these problems will make it unattainable?

[Faustino]

Do I take it from the lack of interest in the thread that

(a) I'm off-target,

or,

(b) Apathy runs so deep that you don't even want to suggest I'm wrong?

[Shuttleworth]

Valid observations. - Worrying.

[S76Heavy]

Faustino,

I would think quite the opposite: too close for comfort.
It has been on my mind for a while, would I still tell young wannabees that it's the best job in the world? I'm just not sure anymore..

[BlueEagle]

I am inclined to agree with S76Heavy, you have hit the nail on the head and apart from agreeing with you there is not a lot to say, you have it in a nutshell.

Don't be disappointed by what you perceive as a lack of response, as I type 148 people have looked at this thread since you started it Faustino. I think you will find that the majority have nothing to add, a sad reflection on professional aviation today.

A crying shame that a thread that should run to several pages may not but had you mentioned something about Iraq, Princess Di. or Formula One it may have stayed front and centre for weeks!

My colleagues and I will have a think and maybe find a forum where you can get the responses you deserve, despite the fact that you selected wisely in the first place.

BlueEagle - Moderator.

[fireflybob]

Faustino - I think you are right on target and this is becoming one of the biggest flight safety issues to affect our profession.

I wish I had some clever answers but I have not.

[Dockjock]

I am only a 3 yr professional and have yet to fly for a major airline or in a jet at all. I am continuing on in my goal of a rewarding career in aviation on the assumption that we are in a low point in a cycle- the lowest point ever in aviation's history. I am counting on the fact that things will get better, and they will do so within 5 years. If not then I will most likely look for something else to do.

Having said that, viewing the conditions in Canada's large jet operators (there are not many) I am reluctant now to even bother setting any of them as a goal!

Air Canada and subsidiaries- poor morale and no esprit de corps, but good wages (to be made worse)
WestJet- excellent morale and decent compensation, but no international variety and stuck on one type "for life"
Jetsgo- Like westjet except minus the morale and compensation
Canjet- ditto
Zoom- one airplane
HMY- one airplane
First Air, Air North- nah
Cargo operators- night flight for life? I hope not.

I sound very negative, but I am not. In fact at least 3 of the companies mentioned would be very nice to work for, but all still rate a distant shot away from why I started. So for now, corporate aviation is my goal.

Corporate- good compensation, good morale in the right company, variety of domestic and international ops, variety of types, personal contact with customers, ability to be "more than just a seniority number".

Here's hoping.

[Faustino]

Thread moved - thanks!

Just s people reading BlueEagle's comments (above) understand, I posted this thread first in Safety CRM etc, and BlueEagle kindly moved it here.

Interesting post from DockJock - some positive words but from someone relatively new to the industry.

I'd be interested in thoughts from some senior people with major carriers, if you're out there...

[arcniz]

A provocative query!

Perhaps it could be enlightening to play the conversation back with a substitution of titles. I would sugest "Rock Star" and "Gastroenterologist", for starters. Many other good job-title candidates wait in the sidelines..

All occupations have their Darwinian qualities. The more prestige, glamour, financial opportunity and importance (rightly or wrongly) associated with a profession, the harder the fish must swim to reach their chosen destiny. Does this apply at all to aviation? Will it stop anytime soon? Probably not. Will pilots adapt? Probably.

More in jeopardy, I think, are the airline companies that employ pilots. Even as aviation has grown and prospered, the airlines have become less sound financially. They expand like crazy when the climate supports growth, then suddenly wilt like an hydrangea caught in the sun when a bit of drought comes along.

The UAL mess illustrates one flavour of the problem: Pilots and crew have the most to gain and the most to lose as the airline goes through the challenge of shrinking operations to fit shrunken demand. Not just jobs, but valuable share interests and pension rights stand likely to go down the tubes without close cooperation to steady the ship. But the polarized factional interests of Capital, several mutually antagonistic Unions, and a bevy of Politicians are standing instead to fight to a finish.

Even if you are a certified rock star, it may not be a bad idea to have a trade in reserve for the tough times. Roofing is steady and predictable, at least. And it gets you out in the air.

[ChrisVJ]

A comment.

If the airlines think that a career path that lasts only 15 yrs is better for them then they are stupid. If you train a pilot and his working life is thirty years, then you would have to train two pilots at double the cost if their working life is fifteen.

On the other hand if you are recruiting then the younger of a group of qualified for the job pilots is your best bet (all other things being equal, which they almost never are,) because then it is going to be longer before you have to train another to take his place.

I'm sure you had all worked that out, sorry if I am just restating the obvious.

[Anthony Carn]

Son of Piltdown sums it up very well.

The career becoming shorter term and less attractive will sap essential experience and attract lower caliber by virtue of the necessary reduction in standards. This demise will feed upon itself in a vicious circle.

The end result will, of course, be reduced safety.

Edited for spelling -- eventually !

[flufdriver]

I think we already see a move away from the "Pilot" being in charge of the aircraft.

The Captain is becoming more of a manager, in some cases during non normal operations, we the (Captains) are being encouraged to leave the flying to the F/O and focus on managing the situation (which I can not fault).

In the military we see more and more unmanned vehicles, I wouldn't be surprised if, within 10 years there is a low cost carrier springing up without humans on the flight deck. The flight will be flown by a "Pilot" sitting on a desk on the ground. The argument will be: oh we can send astronauts to and around the moon on automatic, we can certainly assure the same level of safety to passengers on board our aircraft without pilots on board, after all, they will say, the Pilot is the weakest link in the chain. Of course there will be lots of statistics to back up the argument and low low ticket prices to attract those who are willing to take the chance and they will!

Eventually, we will see one human supervising 3-4 flights each carrying 500 - 600 fun seekers to popular plastic vacation spots.

Then, the select few real Pilots will be flying exclusive corporate aircraft or flying for fun.

[Faustino]

Thank you, colleagues, for some thought-provoking responses so far.

May I ask now, what do we consider are the reasons for the sea change in our industry? I shan't offer possibilities, but would rather hear your views. Please do get involved and post here - I'd love to hear your views.

flufdriver, your post in particular is in line with some free-ranging thinking I have done. I think ten years is probably on the short side, and that there will be very few executive aircraft as the skies will be so crowded as to make them prohibitively expensive even for the fabulously-weathly. Also, crews sitting in simulators will be doing take-offs and landings only and will be cut into the loop for non-normals in flight. The ratio of flight-deck crews in simulators to aircraft flying will be much lower than you guesstimate. I predict around one flight deck crew per thirty aircraft.

On the other hand, it's worth re-reading the threads in the Test Flying forum about the Shuttle accident, and remembering that space travel is experimental - the potential rewards are amazing, but the possible hazards great, and the achieved level of safety very poor relative to commercial air transport.

Also, how do those of us who are 'too old' to change careers feel? Are you stuck in a trap of high earnings but poor lifestyle? Would you do something different if you were ten/twenty years younger?

[fireflybob]

>Also, how do those of us who are 'too old' to change careers feel? Are you stuck in a trap of high earnings but poor lifestyle? Would you do something different if you were ten/twenty years younger?<

Faustino, I like your creative style of questioning!

Charles Handy in one of his books (can't remember which) poses the question as to what the purpose of business is and suggests (rightly in my opinion) that the answer is something much wider than just profit (although there is nothing wrong with making a profit) and that good business benefits society as a whole in many other areas.

I think a good analogy is the story as to how they catch monkeys by making a hole in the melons such that the only way the monkey can get his hand in is with it outstretched. He then clenches his fist to get at the seeds but then refuses to unclench it in order to release his hand from the melon. He cannot run away as the melon is now firmly attached and it is then easy to catch the monkey.

In much the same way we have our clenched fists around the x thousand pounds a year. All we need to do it let go and we can escape - yes, there will be consequences but I believe that if you go for quality of life first then standard of living will follow. It just doesn't work the other way round.

You are NEVER too old to change path. The man who started Kentucky Fried Chicken (personally it's not my scene, I hasten to add), Col Sanders was 65 years old and was so disgusted by his first social security payment that he went knocking on the doors of over 1,000 "restaurants" before someone liked his recipe - he became a millionaire within a very short period of time. The ONLY thing that makes the difference is how you think! As Henry Ford once said, whether you think you can or whether you think you can't, you're right!

[S76Heavy]

As a North Sea helicopter pilot, I enjoy the challenges (well, most of them) that I encounter. I would not like to give it up anytime soon.
What is frightening, however, is the way that several employers have shown a total disregard for their staff and simply treat them as costly assets, that can be disposed of at will as long as it does not cost too much..

Talking to friends that fly for the airlines, the atmosphere is very much the same. Pilots have become assets to be pushed around by bean counters, with company managers showing a total lack of respect to their staff.
If anything eventually will drive me out of this industry, it will be this attitude. This way, there simply is no future in it, no career, no job security, no loyalty.

A sad state of affairs.

[Faustino]

fireflybob,

May I step in again with some more thoughts?

I think the problem that faces us if we follow your (very attractive!) suggestion, is that, whereas many professionals who become fed up of their lot have sufficient recognised skills to find similar earnings elsewhere, the airline pilot (aircraft manager) is redundant outside the flight deck, both figuratively and literally. This should mean caring employers paying lots and lots of money and providing enormous amounts of loss of licence insurance, but this does not happen.

Moreover, in industry and the professions, earnings can be unlimited. A lawyer or doctor who does very well may expect to plan a career path leading to a very serious salary. An airline pilot can expect to make about £80k pa and not a lot more.

In industry and the professions, moving job is possible (frequent?) as a means of career progression. The individual moves from one job to another, taking a rise in salary and benefits and assuming more reponsibility. In aviation, the seniority system makes this impossible.

Outside aviation, it is uncommon for the individual's personal life to be disrupted by large amounts of weekend or overnight working and frequently-disrupted work planning. Yes, many professionals work long hours, but I would argue that a ten hour day in an office is not so stressful as ten hours in the flight deck and may be more rewarding. One reason for this is that the office-based employer knows his staff can easily 'walk' and will take more care of them.

[arcniz]

Faustino I think your premise underestimates the employability of flight personnel outside the airlines.

While it is true the specific technical skills of willing an aircraft from A to B are not so directly applicable elsewhere, the professional experience, management skills, people skills, and resourcefulness that pilots and all other crew members exercise daily in their duties are valuable, sought-after qualities in many occupations.

The daily habits of self-discipline, situational awareness, briefing and self-testing and endlessly learning new procedures and processes are skills that form the baseline for aviation employment but are often rare and greatly desired by management in other fields of business.

Changing skins is frightening and usually involves some interim back-tracking in pay and perks, but many other occupations are accessible and open to aircrew who chose to work outside of aviation. Some even pay better and feel better after a while.

Just as the chosen alternates sometimes come in handy under IFR, it makes sense to have some occupational harbours in mind for bouts of rough weather in one's industry.


-----

As for ground-controlled aircraft - when you do the math, good people are going to be smarter and more effective - and cheaper overall - for a long time to come.

The cases where remote controls are most effective are:

A very well-defined environment/envelope where:
-- weight/space/power are at a very high premium
-- capital and technical support cost are not limiting

and there is also some other primary justification such as extraordinary risk (military) , or relatively few variables (industrial) , or not much consequence if the process fails (experimental), or not a bio-compatible environment (space, reactors, parts of Arfica)

[Desk-pilot]

I'm not sure it's better in any other career

Speaking as someone who has just left a career as an IT Manager in order to pursue pilot training I am sorry to hear that many of you are not as happy as you once were.

Unfortunately I fear that the 'quality of life' experienced in most walks of life is not getting any better and in my own field I have seen my salary stagnate as the IT boom collapsed. Further to that office workers are now expected to do a lot more work than they did 5-10 years ago, mostly by being 'nose to the grindstone' for the whole day rather than having a few minutes to spare for chat or a coffee. The working day has got longer and the chances of redundancy greater, plus many of the little perks that made office life bearable - overseas conferences or training to learn new stuff are under serious threat. SO it becomes a relentless grind of long hours spent in front of a PC revising budget and project plans to keep the bean counters happy!

The trouble with capitalism is that its ultimate aim is for one employee to be monitoring the automated systems of the biggest company in the world. This affects all of us adversely whatever your profession.

Trouble is, I'm not sure there's any alternative - but there's no doubt that consumer demand for everything at the cheapest price, and the city's insistence on increased efficiency accelerates the trend.

Desk-pilot