Are the airlines heading for a training crunch?
Thread Starter
Ok
A couple issues, Redsnail has got it in one.
1) Frozen BS
A big issue is this whole “frozen” ATPL, what is frozen anyway? Does it mean it was issued in Finland? Does this mean a Spanish licence is “Baked”…(well half baked at least).
Lets face fact, the only place on the plane this is referred to is in Europe. Whoever coined the term really f’ed things up.
All it really is, is a CPL with ME IR and passes in the subjects required to be issued with an ATPL. It denotes that the candidate does NOT have the required EXPERIENCE to be issued with a ATPL, be it actual command time, night time, IF “actual” time or whatever.
P1 means your where the buck stops,
P2 means that you are not the PIC of this aircraft
P1US / ICUS, means that you are undergoing the training to be P1
P1 in the right seat is pure BS, Do you hold the stipulated experience to hold an ATPL? Do you hold the stipulated experience to meet the company insurance requirements for P1?
The sooner inexperienced crewmembers, management and others stop deluding themselves the better.
2) ATPL BS
I (ttbs) hold multiple licences from my career to date, all are based upon EXPERIENCE, the JAA in their infinite wisdom have stipulated that you can only have an ATPL with a type above 5.7t. What a load of BS. Do they understand the problems this is causing some industries?
Quiet a few client companies that audit their aviation transport suppliers are literally pulling their hair out, why you ask?
Essentially insurance companies required the P1 to be the holder of a valid ATPL, this limitation ensured that the P1 had the MINIMUM EXPERIENCE required for the operation. Now there are plenty of guys in the industry that have multiple thousands of hours on type and could probably fly the box the thing came in, but now they don’t have valid ATPL’s simply because their type is not above 5.7t
3) Utopia.
Ok granted some of what was said is utopian and I will admit some was lost in translation, but although I agree, these are also utopian point
Quote;
The real solution would be for the airlines to have to bite the bullet, pay the going market rate for experienced pilots and fork out enough money to plan their training requirements properly in the first place
Could not agree more.
Definition of present airline management?
Quote; Unfortunately, the Harvard School of Management is only now beginning to reap the harvest of its flawed doctrine of teaching all their managers and accountants understand the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Absolutely correct.
4) Legacy carriers.
First paragraph, first post, sorry legacy carriers don’t count.
Quote; After all flagship carriers have, until recently, successfully trained their own guys from "zero to hero" through sponsorships, which most people on the site seem to lament the demise of.
Totally understand your point, same theme but a different track.
Ever hear of a “Legacy” carrier take a type rated guy with nil experience…. No nor have we. Their preference is bay far the following, Type rated but with experience and plenty of hours on type, not type rated but with experience… if they foresee a shortage the will require quick upgrades. OR, un-typed minimal experience that they can mould into good little worker bees that believe the myth and toe the company line.
This is why they do invest heavily in screening of potential candidates and using LH as an example they train their people the way they want them from day one. Not just meeting the requirements to pass the flight test for licence issue, but they are basically practising 2 crew from day 1.
This is what is forcing the hand of the regulators to “Invent” a new licence that may be issued for pilots that will no be a CPL/ATPL but a TYPE LICENCE ONLY, for the OPERATION WITH TWO CREW ONLY. Meaning these guys will never fly single pilot and will always have group decision making, and always have someone else to rely on. Talk about 7 of 9, more like 3759 of 5000!
5) Experience
Quote; What better experience than a few thousand hours driving a turboprop through the weather? How sad that these people aren’t valued by the bean counters?
Welcome to no man’s land.
6) Results
Quote; -a few smoking holes in the ground would make management take safety seriously. But we're not allowed to say that, are we?
LX, 28 Zurich. The sanitised report alluded to the fact that if the FO had of been more EXPERIENCED maybe they would not have been below MDA. (Yes we know that there were other factor’s..don’t shoot)
GF, BAH, The A320 STUKA, If the FO had more EXPERIENCE and the intestinal fortitude to say something to the LHS then this accident would not have happened and should never have. Cultural differences my ass, nobody wants to die.
The RJ in France not too long back, cant remember who, but if the FO had more EXPERIENCE he probably would have caught the captains incapacitation and taken over. Steep cockpit gradient? Maybe.
In each of these EXPERIENCE level was a contributing factor, along with other factors combined.
Quote; But we're not allowed to say that, are we?
No it certainly makes some in the upper echelons look stupid.
Your Comments
A couple issues, Redsnail has got it in one.
1) Frozen BS
A big issue is this whole “frozen” ATPL, what is frozen anyway? Does it mean it was issued in Finland? Does this mean a Spanish licence is “Baked”…(well half baked at least).
Lets face fact, the only place on the plane this is referred to is in Europe. Whoever coined the term really f’ed things up.
All it really is, is a CPL with ME IR and passes in the subjects required to be issued with an ATPL. It denotes that the candidate does NOT have the required EXPERIENCE to be issued with a ATPL, be it actual command time, night time, IF “actual” time or whatever.
P1 means your where the buck stops,
P2 means that you are not the PIC of this aircraft
P1US / ICUS, means that you are undergoing the training to be P1
P1 in the right seat is pure BS, Do you hold the stipulated experience to hold an ATPL? Do you hold the stipulated experience to meet the company insurance requirements for P1?
The sooner inexperienced crewmembers, management and others stop deluding themselves the better.
2) ATPL BS
I (ttbs) hold multiple licences from my career to date, all are based upon EXPERIENCE, the JAA in their infinite wisdom have stipulated that you can only have an ATPL with a type above 5.7t. What a load of BS. Do they understand the problems this is causing some industries?
Quiet a few client companies that audit their aviation transport suppliers are literally pulling their hair out, why you ask?
Essentially insurance companies required the P1 to be the holder of a valid ATPL, this limitation ensured that the P1 had the MINIMUM EXPERIENCE required for the operation. Now there are plenty of guys in the industry that have multiple thousands of hours on type and could probably fly the box the thing came in, but now they don’t have valid ATPL’s simply because their type is not above 5.7t
3) Utopia.
Ok granted some of what was said is utopian and I will admit some was lost in translation, but although I agree, these are also utopian point
Quote;
The real solution would be for the airlines to have to bite the bullet, pay the going market rate for experienced pilots and fork out enough money to plan their training requirements properly in the first place
Could not agree more.
Definition of present airline management?
Quote; Unfortunately, the Harvard School of Management is only now beginning to reap the harvest of its flawed doctrine of teaching all their managers and accountants understand the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Absolutely correct.
4) Legacy carriers.
First paragraph, first post, sorry legacy carriers don’t count.
Quote; After all flagship carriers have, until recently, successfully trained their own guys from "zero to hero" through sponsorships, which most people on the site seem to lament the demise of.
Totally understand your point, same theme but a different track.
Ever hear of a “Legacy” carrier take a type rated guy with nil experience…. No nor have we. Their preference is bay far the following, Type rated but with experience and plenty of hours on type, not type rated but with experience… if they foresee a shortage the will require quick upgrades. OR, un-typed minimal experience that they can mould into good little worker bees that believe the myth and toe the company line.
This is why they do invest heavily in screening of potential candidates and using LH as an example they train their people the way they want them from day one. Not just meeting the requirements to pass the flight test for licence issue, but they are basically practising 2 crew from day 1.
This is what is forcing the hand of the regulators to “Invent” a new licence that may be issued for pilots that will no be a CPL/ATPL but a TYPE LICENCE ONLY, for the OPERATION WITH TWO CREW ONLY. Meaning these guys will never fly single pilot and will always have group decision making, and always have someone else to rely on. Talk about 7 of 9, more like 3759 of 5000!
5) Experience
Quote; What better experience than a few thousand hours driving a turboprop through the weather? How sad that these people aren’t valued by the bean counters?
Welcome to no man’s land.
6) Results
Quote; -a few smoking holes in the ground would make management take safety seriously. But we're not allowed to say that, are we?
LX, 28 Zurich. The sanitised report alluded to the fact that if the FO had of been more EXPERIENCED maybe they would not have been below MDA. (Yes we know that there were other factor’s..don’t shoot)
GF, BAH, The A320 STUKA, If the FO had more EXPERIENCE and the intestinal fortitude to say something to the LHS then this accident would not have happened and should never have. Cultural differences my ass, nobody wants to die.
The RJ in France not too long back, cant remember who, but if the FO had more EXPERIENCE he probably would have caught the captains incapacitation and taken over. Steep cockpit gradient? Maybe.
In each of these EXPERIENCE level was a contributing factor, along with other factors combined.
Quote; But we're not allowed to say that, are we?
No it certainly makes some in the upper echelons look stupid.
Your Comments
My company have been hiring young men/ladies with around 400 hrs and a fATPL for the last 6 years.
None of them had one single hour of jet time but they have all turned out well and the first batch are now moving into the left seat with no problem.
We never used to look at anyone with less than 3000 hours and what a huge mistake that was.
"We used to do it this way in DanAir/BA/PanAm/SABENA etc etc." What a pain in the arse that was!
These new boys and girls are very, very bright and an absolute pleasure to teach.
None of them had one single hour of jet time but they have all turned out well and the first batch are now moving into the left seat with no problem.
We never used to look at anyone with less than 3000 hours and what a huge mistake that was.
"We used to do it this way in DanAir/BA/PanAm/SABENA etc etc." What a pain in the arse that was!
These new boys and girls are very, very bright and an absolute pleasure to teach.
Thread Starter
No, it's not my bag baby
JW,
I'M glad that you have had so much success, with your CPL/IR's.
Couple Q's;
Was 6 years to command normal before the use of 400hr guys?
In the past 6 years did your company also take 3000hr+ guys?
In the past 6 years did they take DEC's (rated or not)?
Is the retention rate of the 400 hr guys any better than others?
JW,
I'M glad that you have had so much success, with your CPL/IR's.
Couple Q's;
Was 6 years to command normal before the use of 400hr guys?
In the past 6 years did your company also take 3000hr+ guys?
In the past 6 years did they take DEC's (rated or not)?
Is the retention rate of the 400 hr guys any better than others?
TWOTBAGS:
1. These guys are making it to command in 4 years (not six years).
2. Yes - but very few and they have not exactly done fantasticallywell as compared to the others!
3. Yes - but very, very, very few DECs.
4. Yes - not one single one has left.
1. These guys are making it to command in 4 years (not six years).
2. Yes - but very few and they have not exactly done fantasticallywell as compared to the others!
3. Yes - but very, very, very few DECs.
4. Yes - not one single one has left.
Thread Starter
Well JW I would have to say then that once again there is an exception to the rule.
It just shows that your screening process, and companies investment in training has paid off and or the package is so good that there is no incentive or need to move.
I only wish that this would be the case everywhere.
Its either that or the newbies are completely brainwashed they have no idea whats beyond the boarders...... (not suggesting that this is the case but i have seen it!).
It just shows that your screening process, and companies investment in training has paid off and or the package is so good that there is no incentive or need to move.
I only wish that this would be the case everywhere.
Its either that or the newbies are completely brainwashed they have no idea whats beyond the boarders...... (not suggesting that this is the case but i have seen it!).
ECON cruise, LR cruise...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MIRSI hold - give or take...
Age: 52
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twotbags,
Absolutely right on most counts - but beg to differ on the quality of z-t-h candidates. Yes, most of them obviously lack experience - which is very much one their qualities!
Experience comes in several forms, but for our purposes we can cut it down to 2 types: a) Relevant experience and b) Irrelevant experience. B) may be further sub-divided into two categories: b)1 Irrelvant but harmless/neutral experience and b)2 Irrelevant but undesireable/hard-to-correct experience.
Now, with the present training system (where you learn to fly using bugsmashers), a disproportionate amount of time is used practising stuff that will have absolutely no relevance for professional airline transport (carburattor ice/eingine failure in SEPs/stall recovery in SEPs/VFR com procedures/grass field operations etc.) but is necessary to get more or less safely throgh training, i.e. the form training takes necessitates these skills to be learnt. This clearly falls into the "useless but harmless" category.
Next, our self improvers (of which I'm one) go off to gain experience as 2P in a light turbo-prop, flying in a small company. SOPs? Command gradient? CRM? Get the dictionary, please! Of course, there are some really great, professional small-scale operators, but they are the exception, and even in the orther sort of companies, you find a lot of professionally minded pilots and trainers alike - but how often do you fly with them? In other words - 2000 hrs. on a B200 with an operator that may or may not provide the best background to a professional flying career - that may or may not leave you with either "relevant" experience or "irrelevant, undesireable" experience. And they may (or may not) for that very reason constitute a training risk.
Last bunch I worked for, I had the pleasure of line training both varieties - with the noticeable exception that the guys with experience were all type rated & had about 500 hrs. on type. When line training was completed - we tried to compare training files
And without exception - the guys with experience on type had more trouble and the less steep learning curve. Obviously, they flew the aircraft better - but they operated it to a lower standard (e.g. I'd rather see a z-t-h type do a nice stabilised approach at 160-to-4 instead of people trying to do 170-to-3 and demonstrate interesting ways of slowing down the aircraft "because it saves airborne time") I'm sure that this picture is now much more equal for the group in question - after another 500 hrs. Yet - the point remains: the first 500 hrs. the experienced guys had flown don't not show today. After 7 months - they're on an equal footing with the z-t-h guys&gals.
Experience needs to be quantified & weighed against what role the new hiree is intended to fill. If you fly charter ops on a relatively simple aircarft (73X?) into many different, difficult & limiting airports - I'll go for the t-prop hand any old time (because they handle the aircraft very well). If you fly scheduled ops into cat A airports only on highly automated equipment (A32X etc.) - I'd say the z-t-h candidate offers the best risk/benefit ratio - horses for courses, 'spose.
How about setting up some sort of evaluation agency/bureau where you can pay up, register & take psycometric & simulator tests & get scored on a comprehensive matrix that would show your strong & not-so-strong areas? Then airlines can easily see how their personality matrix fits with individual candidates & use that to decide who they want to call for an interview & do their own evaluation on - instead of just saying "Oh, you got 2000 hours of Kingair time - we are not interested, sorry"! It comes down to the fact that it depends on individual abilities & psycological profiles weather you will fit into a given airline job or not. Some people will shine through, no matter how much BS they have been fed by various captains/companies/instructors - others need exactly the right growth & stimulation environment to develop their abilities.
Both kinds of people make excellent pilots - and both types deserve a decent chance
Brgds fm
Empty
Absolutely right on most counts - but beg to differ on the quality of z-t-h candidates. Yes, most of them obviously lack experience - which is very much one their qualities!
Experience comes in several forms, but for our purposes we can cut it down to 2 types: a) Relevant experience and b) Irrelevant experience. B) may be further sub-divided into two categories: b)1 Irrelvant but harmless/neutral experience and b)2 Irrelevant but undesireable/hard-to-correct experience.
Now, with the present training system (where you learn to fly using bugsmashers), a disproportionate amount of time is used practising stuff that will have absolutely no relevance for professional airline transport (carburattor ice/eingine failure in SEPs/stall recovery in SEPs/VFR com procedures/grass field operations etc.) but is necessary to get more or less safely throgh training, i.e. the form training takes necessitates these skills to be learnt. This clearly falls into the "useless but harmless" category.
Next, our self improvers (of which I'm one) go off to gain experience as 2P in a light turbo-prop, flying in a small company. SOPs? Command gradient? CRM? Get the dictionary, please! Of course, there are some really great, professional small-scale operators, but they are the exception, and even in the orther sort of companies, you find a lot of professionally minded pilots and trainers alike - but how often do you fly with them? In other words - 2000 hrs. on a B200 with an operator that may or may not provide the best background to a professional flying career - that may or may not leave you with either "relevant" experience or "irrelevant, undesireable" experience. And they may (or may not) for that very reason constitute a training risk.
Last bunch I worked for, I had the pleasure of line training both varieties - with the noticeable exception that the guys with experience were all type rated & had about 500 hrs. on type. When line training was completed - we tried to compare training files
And without exception - the guys with experience on type had more trouble and the less steep learning curve. Obviously, they flew the aircraft better - but they operated it to a lower standard (e.g. I'd rather see a z-t-h type do a nice stabilised approach at 160-to-4 instead of people trying to do 170-to-3 and demonstrate interesting ways of slowing down the aircraft "because it saves airborne time") I'm sure that this picture is now much more equal for the group in question - after another 500 hrs. Yet - the point remains: the first 500 hrs. the experienced guys had flown don't not show today. After 7 months - they're on an equal footing with the z-t-h guys&gals.Experience needs to be quantified & weighed against what role the new hiree is intended to fill. If you fly charter ops on a relatively simple aircarft (73X?) into many different, difficult & limiting airports - I'll go for the t-prop hand any old time (because they handle the aircraft very well). If you fly scheduled ops into cat A airports only on highly automated equipment (A32X etc.) - I'd say the z-t-h candidate offers the best risk/benefit ratio - horses for courses, 'spose.
How about setting up some sort of evaluation agency/bureau where you can pay up, register & take psycometric & simulator tests & get scored on a comprehensive matrix that would show your strong & not-so-strong areas? Then airlines can easily see how their personality matrix fits with individual candidates & use that to decide who they want to call for an interview & do their own evaluation on - instead of just saying "Oh, you got 2000 hours of Kingair time - we are not interested, sorry"! It comes down to the fact that it depends on individual abilities & psycological profiles weather you will fit into a given airline job or not. Some people will shine through, no matter how much BS they have been fed by various captains/companies/instructors - others need exactly the right growth & stimulation environment to develop their abilities.
Both kinds of people make excellent pilots - and both types deserve a decent chance
Brgds fm
Empty
Thread Starter
MT Agreed
You said:
Experience needs to be quantified & weighed against what role the new hiree is intended to fill. If you fly charter ops on a relatively simple aircarft (73X?) into many different, difficult & limiting airports - I'll go for the t-prop hand any old time (because they handle the aircraft very well).
If you fly scheduled ops into cat A airports only on highly automated equipment (A32X etc.) - I'd say the z-t-h candidate offers the best risk/benefit ratio - horses for courses, 'spose.
Very True.
How then do we get the prospective employers to realise this and get some of those experienced candidated in NML on track??
Experience needs to be quantified & weighed against what role the new hiree is intended to fill. If you fly charter ops on a relatively simple aircarft (73X?) into many different, difficult & limiting airports - I'll go for the t-prop hand any old time (because they handle the aircraft very well).
If you fly scheduled ops into cat A airports only on highly automated equipment (A32X etc.) - I'd say the z-t-h candidate offers the best risk/benefit ratio - horses for courses, 'spose.
Very True.
How then do we get the prospective employers to realise this and get some of those experienced candidated in NML on track??
ECON cruise, LR cruise...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MIRSI hold - give or take...
Age: 52
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twotbags,
Yeah - it's a dying shame about many good guys&gals stuck in NML
But there are exceptions to the rule 
A well known charter airline based at a London airport (an airline known for its willingness to offer e.g. aspiring pruners a shot at a B73 rating & a job ) just pulled 2 of us out of NML - and I am forever grateful they took the chance on me (now one of our mods might have guessed who I am - so be it, Hamra 
).
On the other hand - that unfortunately means that I'm now working for a carrier that does not need convincing that it's worth giving some NML'ers a break - not a lot I can do, therefore... BUT - we gotta work the other players in the industry.
A guy I know is busy on the typerating right now - but when he's done & back to normal, he might be interested in working on an idea along the lines suggested earlier
Up for it, Twots? - let's wreck some havoc 
Brgds
Empty
Yeah - it's a dying shame about many good guys&gals stuck in NML
But there are exceptions to the rule A well known charter airline based at a London airport (an airline known for its willingness to offer e.g. aspiring pruners a shot at a B73 rating & a job
) just pulled 2 of us out of NML - and I am forever grateful they took the chance on me (now one of our mods might have guessed who I am - so be it, Hamra ).On the other hand - that unfortunately means that I'm now working for a carrier that does not need convincing that it's worth giving some NML'ers a break - not a lot I can do, therefore... BUT - we gotta work the other players in the industry.
A guy I know is busy on the typerating right now - but when he's done & back to normal, he might be interested in working on an idea along the lines suggested earlier
Up for it, Twots?
- let's wreck some havoc Brgds
Empty
