Training of low hour pilots in airlines
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those who have problems with Automation need more sim time and those with poor basic Instrument skills need more sim time.
That's why everyday self training is so important.
It can and must be done on the real airplane.
Forget about sim!
Believe in your culture, and challenge yourself - or help the rookie doing so.
Are the new guys trained on enough system problems and emergencies in the simulator, to enable them to also both fly the plane and talk to ATC (during IMC climbout over high mountains in Kalispell, Montana, or the Alps...) while the ever-patient regular line Captain is very distracted by the "Center tank fuel not feeding", or "Cabin fails to pressurize" procedure etc, and WITHOUT any LNAV/VNAV/autothrottles?
Also, does the very high level of academia (Britain, Europe) studied for "foreign" licenses sometimes confuse the newer pilots' ability to improve situational awareness, i.e. clearway design, weather forecasting, now many Joules in continuous ignition (burner cans 4 and 7, or 5 and 8? ...how many angels can dance on the head of a pin)...?
Also, does the very high level of academia (Britain, Europe) studied for "foreign" licenses sometimes confuse the newer pilots' ability to improve situational awareness, i.e. clearway design, weather forecasting, now many Joules in continuous ignition (burner cans 4 and 7, or 5 and 8? ...how many angels can dance on the head of a pin)...?
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks,
Very interesting thread, particularly as it got so close to the normal Mexican stand-off between those already there and those frightened that they won't get the opportunity.
In the end, it is always about risk management. That is why automation exists and why simulators exist and why training systems are regulated and.....
I am old and automatics only featured in one third of my life. I love automatics because they are an aid not a crutch and I can survive very nicely by myself if they fail. I hate seeing automation-dependency, whether it is kids who can't count if their calculator fails and can't write if their computer crashes or if it is B717 pilots who would go sick if an autopilot was MEL'd.
Because I am old and survived places like Chimbu's Land of the Unexpected, I also like the idea of experienced trainees for the jet, particularly if the weather, infrastructure and terrain are all very shabby.
However, the original question was not about preferences - it was about how to deal with a decision already made to employ inexperienced pilots.
The first step might be to analyse the risks of the operation itself: what hazards are inherent in the route structure, the airspace, the weather, ATC, the aerodromes, the national culture, the aircraft type, the equipment standards, the maintenance arrangements, the company culture, the training system and the crew demographics for a start?
The second step might be assess the impact of all of the identified hazards under such focus areas as finance, legal, performance and social standing.
The third step might be revisit the level of hazard if the existing crew demographics are changed by introducing low time recruits.
The fourth step then might well be to look at dealing with the resulting risks and how to reduce, remove or control the risks accordingly. The advantage of adding formality to this process is that emotion and folklore get isolated from the core issues.
I suspect that such things as the length and syllabus of the ground school and simulator/flight training package would be revisited and it may be that the company may modify its automation policy to provide a balanced outcome. Some routes may be declared unsuitable for in-flight training. Some Training Captains may also be similarly declared.
But when push comes to shove, the Training Captain needs to find out what the trainee has never done, has done but not well and has done well. At the risk of being counter-culture, I find that generally they are good at instrument flying and handling abnormals/emergencies because that is what traditional training focuses on, but they are not so good at PNF duties - so I let them fly first. Importantly, I treat the first couple of sectors as a comfort zone entry point for them to show that there is strong relationship between simulator and aeroplane and that they can cope with real time events - basically I try to use the Safety Pilot as the other half of the operating crew while the newbie gets to explore.
I think the risk assessment demands the use of an experienced FO as safety pilot - although a tough call in many places, it may well be the risk mitigator that prevents a major cock-up.
In my experience, the trainee is probably already quite apprehensive and most likely to be standing on the edge of a self-confidence cliff. The important task is to lead them back from that edge because once they believe that it is all within their capacity to cope, they will have the brain space for all of the experience-based hints, short cuts, warnings and assistance that you will want to stuff into their brains. The critical task is not to overload them with too ambitious targets at the early stages.
My final comment about how to deal with this particular situation is that you need an ally in the training management, because your first training attempt may well be just as big a voyage of discovery for you as it will be for the trainee and you need the flexibility to extend if your training plan turns out to be too ambitious - your duty as a trainer is not to compromise your trainee's future as a consequence of your performance.
It can be done and it can be done safely if the right environment, both management and training, is created and maintained.
Stay Alive,
Very interesting thread, particularly as it got so close to the normal Mexican stand-off between those already there and those frightened that they won't get the opportunity.
In the end, it is always about risk management. That is why automation exists and why simulators exist and why training systems are regulated and.....
I am old and automatics only featured in one third of my life. I love automatics because they are an aid not a crutch and I can survive very nicely by myself if they fail. I hate seeing automation-dependency, whether it is kids who can't count if their calculator fails and can't write if their computer crashes or if it is B717 pilots who would go sick if an autopilot was MEL'd.
Because I am old and survived places like Chimbu's Land of the Unexpected, I also like the idea of experienced trainees for the jet, particularly if the weather, infrastructure and terrain are all very shabby.
However, the original question was not about preferences - it was about how to deal with a decision already made to employ inexperienced pilots.
The first step might be to analyse the risks of the operation itself: what hazards are inherent in the route structure, the airspace, the weather, ATC, the aerodromes, the national culture, the aircraft type, the equipment standards, the maintenance arrangements, the company culture, the training system and the crew demographics for a start?
The second step might be assess the impact of all of the identified hazards under such focus areas as finance, legal, performance and social standing.
The third step might be revisit the level of hazard if the existing crew demographics are changed by introducing low time recruits.
The fourth step then might well be to look at dealing with the resulting risks and how to reduce, remove or control the risks accordingly. The advantage of adding formality to this process is that emotion and folklore get isolated from the core issues.
I suspect that such things as the length and syllabus of the ground school and simulator/flight training package would be revisited and it may be that the company may modify its automation policy to provide a balanced outcome. Some routes may be declared unsuitable for in-flight training. Some Training Captains may also be similarly declared.
But when push comes to shove, the Training Captain needs to find out what the trainee has never done, has done but not well and has done well. At the risk of being counter-culture, I find that generally they are good at instrument flying and handling abnormals/emergencies because that is what traditional training focuses on, but they are not so good at PNF duties - so I let them fly first. Importantly, I treat the first couple of sectors as a comfort zone entry point for them to show that there is strong relationship between simulator and aeroplane and that they can cope with real time events - basically I try to use the Safety Pilot as the other half of the operating crew while the newbie gets to explore.
I think the risk assessment demands the use of an experienced FO as safety pilot - although a tough call in many places, it may well be the risk mitigator that prevents a major cock-up.
In my experience, the trainee is probably already quite apprehensive and most likely to be standing on the edge of a self-confidence cliff. The important task is to lead them back from that edge because once they believe that it is all within their capacity to cope, they will have the brain space for all of the experience-based hints, short cuts, warnings and assistance that you will want to stuff into their brains. The critical task is not to overload them with too ambitious targets at the early stages.
My final comment about how to deal with this particular situation is that you need an ally in the training management, because your first training attempt may well be just as big a voyage of discovery for you as it will be for the trainee and you need the flexibility to extend if your training plan turns out to be too ambitious - your duty as a trainer is not to compromise your trainee's future as a consequence of your performance.
It can be done and it can be done safely if the right environment, both management and training, is created and maintained.
Stay Alive,
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Global
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very Nicely put 4dogs.
If you are where I suspect say Gday to Shaggs Howel for us.
In our situation, automation or lack of it, is not a factor. Aptiude of candidates is.
Unfortunately we have a very week training management and little support from the head office.
One of the Expat captains has resigned in protest of the whole situation
Cheers
IHD
If you are where I suspect say Gday to Shaggs Howel for us.
In our situation, automation or lack of it, is not a factor. Aptiude of candidates is.
Unfortunately we have a very week training management and little support from the head office.
One of the Expat captains has resigned in protest of the whole situation
Cheers
IHD
