Let's make our Profession prestigious again
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Europa
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done Cpt Sunshine!
You can email your concerns c/o
Anna Wielki-Sergio
Assistant to Diego Canga Fano
Deputy Head of Cabinet to VP Tajani
European Commission
here:
Anna dot Wielki-Sergio at ec dot europa dot eu
----------------
Here is my reply to first contact with them in March 2009:
"Please pass on my thanks to Mr Diego Canga Fano for his response to my enquiry and concerns.
It is hoped that EU wide harmonisation under EASA can be implemented with an improvement to Flight Safety. Particularly, the closing of current loopholes in the JAR system that has removed the requirement to obtain valuable flight experience from flight crew licensing criteria. This has also led to the demise of the flight instructor and general aviation route into commercial flying.
Whilst I accept that a 21 year old with excellent health, motor skills, mathematics and good interpersonal skills makes an ideal candidate for in house airline training (e.g: British Airways, KLM, Lufthansa have run sponsored schemes successfully), there is no substitute for experience. The recent incidents in New York (Airbus A320 in the Hudson River ) and at Schipol NL (Boeing 737 short finals Runway18R) highlight the need for experienced flight crew who know how to operate aircraft manually without computer dependance in order to avert catastrophe.
With defence cuts there are less ex Military pilots coming through to the airline world and many of today's younger pilots have not experienced flight outside of an automated environment apart from their initial fixed wing and Type specific Simulator training where systems can be failed in a safe learning environment.
These concerns have been researched in depth by Cranfield University see: Flight safety takes centre stage
Their Flight Operations Research Centre of Excellence (FORCE) has done useful research. But the Airline Training Industry seems to have been reluctant to take on the researchers advice due to familiarity with the old training methods and cost issues. The latter's customer airlines have been attracted to the lower cost of pilot acquisition - the trainee now pays not only for initial training but also airline training and even to fly "the line" with fare paying passengers!
Flying an aeroplane can be an enjoyable and challenging lifelong expertise. Sadly, as a result of cost cutting to appease the directors of Low Cost operators, the career is no longer attractive to new comers. This was described succinctly by Capt C. Sullenberger to US Congress:
'Sully' to Congress: Pay cuts deter experienced pilots | New Jersey Real-Time News - - NJ.com
One solution:
An apprenticeship from basic training, through instructional or General Aviation (Parachute dropping, Glider towing, Courier, Survey flying, Navigational Aid Flight Testing, Business Aviation) then on to larger aeroplanes with the Airlines provides the pilot with an interesting career and a well rounded set of skills that are indispensable to Flight Safety. Pay and conditions will also need to improve to retain experienced crews within the EU.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Yours Sincerely"
Anna Wielki-Sergio
Assistant to Diego Canga Fano
Deputy Head of Cabinet to VP Tajani
European Commission
here:
Anna dot Wielki-Sergio at ec dot europa dot eu
----------------
Here is my reply to first contact with them in March 2009:
"Please pass on my thanks to Mr Diego Canga Fano for his response to my enquiry and concerns.
It is hoped that EU wide harmonisation under EASA can be implemented with an improvement to Flight Safety. Particularly, the closing of current loopholes in the JAR system that has removed the requirement to obtain valuable flight experience from flight crew licensing criteria. This has also led to the demise of the flight instructor and general aviation route into commercial flying.
Whilst I accept that a 21 year old with excellent health, motor skills, mathematics and good interpersonal skills makes an ideal candidate for in house airline training (e.g: British Airways, KLM, Lufthansa have run sponsored schemes successfully), there is no substitute for experience. The recent incidents in New York (Airbus A320 in the Hudson River ) and at Schipol NL (Boeing 737 short finals Runway18R) highlight the need for experienced flight crew who know how to operate aircraft manually without computer dependance in order to avert catastrophe.
With defence cuts there are less ex Military pilots coming through to the airline world and many of today's younger pilots have not experienced flight outside of an automated environment apart from their initial fixed wing and Type specific Simulator training where systems can be failed in a safe learning environment.
These concerns have been researched in depth by Cranfield University see: Flight safety takes centre stage
Their Flight Operations Research Centre of Excellence (FORCE) has done useful research. But the Airline Training Industry seems to have been reluctant to take on the researchers advice due to familiarity with the old training methods and cost issues. The latter's customer airlines have been attracted to the lower cost of pilot acquisition - the trainee now pays not only for initial training but also airline training and even to fly "the line" with fare paying passengers!
Flying an aeroplane can be an enjoyable and challenging lifelong expertise. Sadly, as a result of cost cutting to appease the directors of Low Cost operators, the career is no longer attractive to new comers. This was described succinctly by Capt C. Sullenberger to US Congress:
'Sully' to Congress: Pay cuts deter experienced pilots | New Jersey Real-Time News - - NJ.com
One solution:
An apprenticeship from basic training, through instructional or General Aviation (Parachute dropping, Glider towing, Courier, Survey flying, Navigational Aid Flight Testing, Business Aviation) then on to larger aeroplanes with the Airlines provides the pilot with an interesting career and a well rounded set of skills that are indispensable to Flight Safety. Pay and conditions will also need to improve to retain experienced crews within the EU.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Yours Sincerely"
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
College of Pilots
What would be the reaction if a College of Pilots was formed? Like the "Royal College of Surgeons" a professional body that controlled the number of graduates from approved schools, studying and flying an approved syllabus so that the quality and quantity of pilots were provided to the market in a controlled manner. For example the college sets the number of ATPLs to be issued in a year rather than the current market driven situation.
Provide on going standards and training throughout a pilots career.
Provide support and mentoring.
Discuss?
What would be the reaction if a College of Pilots was formed? Like the "Royal College of Surgeons" a professional body that controlled the number of graduates from approved schools, studying and flying an approved syllabus so that the quality and quantity of pilots were provided to the market in a controlled manner. For example the college sets the number of ATPLs to be issued in a year rather than the current market driven situation.
Provide on going standards and training throughout a pilots career.
Provide support and mentoring.
Discuss?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Colchester
Age: 77
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cpt Sunshine
I do not wish to enter the debate about the rights and wrongs of 'pay-to-fly schemes' but it seems to me that your letter over-emphasises the safety factors associated with low-houred cadet pilots on such schemes.
Of course, safety must the prime consideration. However, low-houred cadets flying large passenger aircraft is nothing new. In 1987 British Airways introduced its sponsored trainee pilot scheme for cadets age over 18 and under 24 years. Other than a genuine interest in flying, there was no requirement that the trainee should have a minimum number of flying hours. The training undertaken by the British Airways cadets was much the same as that currently undertaken by those currently on 'pay-to-fly' schemes: CPL/IR and 'frozen ATPL' followed by a Type rating on a BAC 1-11 or Boeing 737.
British Midland Airways and Britannia Airways offered similar schemes.
Apart from the obvious fact that cadets these days are having to pay for their training, I would be surprised if there were any difference in the quality of the low-houred FOs today compared with those who were trained under the sponshorship schemes. Indeed many of the cadets who have been through the pay-to-fly schemes would have been accepted by the airlines offering sponsorship shemes 10-20 years ago.
I do not wish to enter the debate about the rights and wrongs of 'pay-to-fly schemes' but it seems to me that your letter over-emphasises the safety factors associated with low-houred cadet pilots on such schemes.
Of course, safety must the prime consideration. However, low-houred cadets flying large passenger aircraft is nothing new. In 1987 British Airways introduced its sponsored trainee pilot scheme for cadets age over 18 and under 24 years. Other than a genuine interest in flying, there was no requirement that the trainee should have a minimum number of flying hours. The training undertaken by the British Airways cadets was much the same as that currently undertaken by those currently on 'pay-to-fly' schemes: CPL/IR and 'frozen ATPL' followed by a Type rating on a BAC 1-11 or Boeing 737.
British Midland Airways and Britannia Airways offered similar schemes.
Apart from the obvious fact that cadets these days are having to pay for their training, I would be surprised if there were any difference in the quality of the low-houred FOs today compared with those who were trained under the sponshorship schemes. Indeed many of the cadets who have been through the pay-to-fly schemes would have been accepted by the airlines offering sponsorship shemes 10-20 years ago.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hemel Hempstead
Age: 43
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As much as I believe in the importance of a structured career path to keep the higher pay scales in existence. I can't support the argument that, a jet requires more skill and experience to fly than any other multicrew aircraft, the number if seats behind you is no argument for how difficult or challenging an aircraft is to fly. Multicrew experience is multicrew experience, jumping from a Seneca into turboprop is just as challenging as into a jet and vice versa. I would certainly own up to finding stepping back into single crew air taxi work very challenging and I would imagine lots of others would too. As far as flying jets or turboprops in a multicrew environment sops are sops, it doesn't take a special sky god like pilot to master flying a jet, 200 hour guys in an a320 is no different to 200 hour guys in a dash 8, both are a challenge with no experience, I do not believe you can use the safety card, when these legacy carriers have had structured schemes for decades. What needs to be done is finding a way of structuring a pilots career path and pay structure be it apprenticeships to gain experience or permanent positions, not short term contracts for people with little or no experience and no opportunity to gain any in any other way but these seasonal schemes which are tailored for maximum benefit to the company at the expense of low experienced pilots. A group of people that need regular consistent flying to build up a bank of experience, short term contracts are in my view detrimental to a low houred pilots ability level with long periods of little or no flying.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Not far from the airport
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed. Capt Sunshine, your letter is excellent and well developed, PaulW makes a very good point here in that it's not about aircraft you're flying, or how many passengers are on board (although granted, a 200 seat passenger Jet as used in your example might get the attention of those that read it) - it's about the level of experience in a multicrew environment that the pilot has amassed.
It's the introduction of pay-to-fly schemes by Easyjet and Ryanair and the likes, along with the lack of a contract of employment or reasonable pay for working prior to being line checked.
PaulW is also right in that there needs to be a structure for a pilot career in Europe. And perhaps the best way of getting this established is the creation of an institute of college of pilots that can oversee and introduce trained pilots into airlines, as you mention, similar to that of doctors or surgeons.
Of course, the big problem is that commercial aviation is just that - commercial and private. At least surgeons and doctors and the like tend to go into the NHS and so it's in the interest of the UK at least to control and manage the influx of individuals into these professions - whereas who could possibly manage the Institute for Chartered Pilots or the College of Airline Pilots? It's a great idea, and probably just what the industry needs -some regulation on pilot recruitment.
It's the introduction of pay-to-fly schemes by Easyjet and Ryanair and the likes, along with the lack of a contract of employment or reasonable pay for working prior to being line checked.
PaulW is also right in that there needs to be a structure for a pilot career in Europe. And perhaps the best way of getting this established is the creation of an institute of college of pilots that can oversee and introduce trained pilots into airlines, as you mention, similar to that of doctors or surgeons.
Of course, the big problem is that commercial aviation is just that - commercial and private. At least surgeons and doctors and the like tend to go into the NHS and so it's in the interest of the UK at least to control and manage the influx of individuals into these professions - whereas who could possibly manage the Institute for Chartered Pilots or the College of Airline Pilots? It's a great idea, and probably just what the industry needs -some regulation on pilot recruitment.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: everywhere
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree that there is a problem with low houred pilot flying in the RHS of an airliner. It has been happening for decades and generally very successfully - you don't need examples.
I do have a huge problem with UNSELECTED, useless morons paying to fly - they are the only people that do it.
Low houred pilots and PTF do go hand in hand yes but they don't have to - that is what needs to change. The financial side of things which allows people to be filtered by their ability to pay not their ability to fly, their knowledge and their personality is what is unsafe.
Low houred pilots flying airliners with experienced captains has always been safe and will always be safe. End of. Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly hasn't flown a plane. It's about having someone next you in your inexperienced days, nurturing you through the process. Whether you have 1000 hours or 250 hours makes less than no difference. End of.
I do have a huge problem with UNSELECTED, useless morons paying to fly - they are the only people that do it.
Low houred pilots and PTF do go hand in hand yes but they don't have to - that is what needs to change. The financial side of things which allows people to be filtered by their ability to pay not their ability to fly, their knowledge and their personality is what is unsafe.
Low houred pilots flying airliners with experienced captains has always been safe and will always be safe. End of. Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly hasn't flown a plane. It's about having someone next you in your inexperienced days, nurturing you through the process. Whether you have 1000 hours or 250 hours makes less than no difference. End of.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interestingly this topic came up last week and the issue of the "right stuff" getting through selection and the "wrong stuff" bridging the capability gap with cash was discussed at length. Low hours pilots that used to come through rigorous selection then used to get their heads down and actually try to learn and improve. at Cathy a poor line training performance meant you were out.. full stop. Whilst I am NOT tarring all the SSTR and PTF guys with the same brush, as many many do put the effort in, there is still a minority that feel they have PAID FOR THE RIGHT to sit RHS and basically put in minimal effort, regard the exercise as a crumpet chatting joy ride and then moan on these very forums when given their marching orders. Apart from EASY and BMI I know of no "Partner Airlines" that will send guys packing as they are fearful of the bad press and the termination of the revenue stream. The industry is becoming corrupted by spineless management and greedy TRTOs. A colleague of mine has just gone part time, not because he can afford it, but because every flight is a "Training Flight" and he is totally knackered. Address the selection proceedure, the allowed mix within an airline and the curtailment criteria and we may start moving forward.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: everywhere
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When they read that someone with just the hours to pass his/her license is flying them off on their holidays, they will be shocked.
There is nothing wrong with low houred pilots flying airliners provided they have been selected for the right reasons. There never has been and there never will be. There is no point nor need to include this sentiment in any email/ letter to anyone, anywhere at anytime.
Having an extra 1000 hours on a seneca will do nothing for you when you get into a 737. There's about 59 tonnes, 105ft of length, a sh1t load of energy and a whole load of sophistication worth of difference. Get the chips of shoulders and accept it.
If you wish to discuss it in terms of a worthy food chain then that's a different story.
To add, I see you are only 14 sunshine, fair play and well done for having some standards.
Last edited by TheBeak; 12th Jan 2010 at 17:13. Reason: I have just seen Sunshine is 14!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: England
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The more it gets said, the more it sinks in. A Seneca is not a 737. Your right, I'll accept that. My argument is against SSTR and Pay to Fly and the "200 hr, 200 seat" cadet is the product of that.
I am going to sit down and review the letter and edit certain points out as a result of comments on this thread.
Thank you all for your honesty and please don't use my age as an excuse to hold back, if it's not worth sending then say it. Believe me, I've got some strength of character and criticism is better than filling my head with undue praise.
Yours,
Cpt. Sunshine
I am going to sit down and review the letter and edit certain points out as a result of comments on this thread.
Thank you all for your honesty and please don't use my age as an excuse to hold back, if it's not worth sending then say it. Believe me, I've got some strength of character and criticism is better than filling my head with undue praise.
Yours,
Cpt. Sunshine
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Colchester
Age: 77
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no wish to get involved in the rights and wrongs of 'pay-to-fly- schemes. However, I can't help but feel that the safety concerns with regard to low-houred 'pay-to-fly cadets' is being exaggerated. Safety must be the number one priority of all airlines and I fail to understand why a low-houred 'pay-to-fly' cadet should not be safe. For many years airlines have employed low-houred cadets.
In 1987 British Airways introduced a sponsorship scheme for cadets age over 18 and under 24. A genuine interest in flying by applicants was considered more important than actual flying experience. The British Airways training involved CPL/IR and a 'frozen ATPL' followed by a Type Rating on a BAC 1-11 or Boeing 737. British Midland Airways and Britannia Airways also operated Bursary Sponsorship schemes for those age 18-26.
With the obvious difference of not having to pay for the sponsorship schemes, it seems to me that there is no difference between the trainig undertaken by sponsored cadets in the 1980s and 1009s and those who have embarked on the current 'pay-to-fly' schemes. Many of the cadets currently on 'pay-to-fly' schemes are surely of a standard that 10-20 years ago would have seen them accepted on a sponsored scheme.
There were well trained low-houred sponsored cadets in the 1980s and 1990s and there are well-trained 'pay-to-fly' cadets today. I fail to understand why the low-houred cadets of today are considered less safe.
In 1987 British Airways introduced a sponsorship scheme for cadets age over 18 and under 24. A genuine interest in flying by applicants was considered more important than actual flying experience. The British Airways training involved CPL/IR and a 'frozen ATPL' followed by a Type Rating on a BAC 1-11 or Boeing 737. British Midland Airways and Britannia Airways also operated Bursary Sponsorship schemes for those age 18-26.
With the obvious difference of not having to pay for the sponsorship schemes, it seems to me that there is no difference between the trainig undertaken by sponsored cadets in the 1980s and 1009s and those who have embarked on the current 'pay-to-fly' schemes. Many of the cadets currently on 'pay-to-fly' schemes are surely of a standard that 10-20 years ago would have seen them accepted on a sponsored scheme.
There were well trained low-houred sponsored cadets in the 1980s and 1990s and there are well-trained 'pay-to-fly' cadets today. I fail to understand why the low-houred cadets of today are considered less safe.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation works on a 12-15 year sine curve.
1974 was the bottom of the curve with the oil crisis: by 1986 guys leaving the RAF were holding 2 or 3 job offers and companies were crying out for pilots.
By 1993 the curve had gone down and was heading towards the bottom: it picked up again and 2005-6 should have been good years, at the top, but 9/11 threw the wobbly which put the curve out of kilter for about 2 years.
So the curve hits rock bottom in 2001 / 2: we could expect it to pick up by 2012 / 16.
When it does the pay to fly schemes will have died a death and companies will falling over themselves for pilots, because without pilots,there is no expansion, growth or profit.
Patience.
1974 was the bottom of the curve with the oil crisis: by 1986 guys leaving the RAF were holding 2 or 3 job offers and companies were crying out for pilots.
By 1993 the curve had gone down and was heading towards the bottom: it picked up again and 2005-6 should have been good years, at the top, but 9/11 threw the wobbly which put the curve out of kilter for about 2 years.
So the curve hits rock bottom in 2001 / 2: we could expect it to pick up by 2012 / 16.
When it does the pay to fly schemes will have died a death and companies will falling over themselves for pilots, because without pilots,there is no expansion, growth or profit.
Patience.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK, Paris, Peckham, New York
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would love for the the 1000 hr rule to be in place and for people to gain some more hand on flying and decision making skills in light aircraft as you must do in the states, and I am currently training for my atpl's (i am not in a rush to jump into a scarebus without getting experience first)
I dont think it is that feasible to do here however, is there a big enough market for glider towing, instructing, air taxi etc to enable to get the experience? I personally dont think there is. Gliding is unfortunately a dying sport with dwindling numbers and clubs struggling to stay open (as a current glider pilot this is a known fact)
Although I have no experience of air taxi I imagine that it is dying out also with the advent of cheap low cost jet flights i imagine that will be an avenue closed soon as well.
That leaves instructing, and from what i can glean that seems to be a bit of a struggle as well now, for sure if every one of the 2-300 stary eyed OAA 'graduates' each year pursued FI route that would put far to many instructors on the market, surely there arenot that many PPL students and that amount of new instructors would destroy the already low t+c for exisiting career instructors!
I dont think it is that feasible to do here however, is there a big enough market for glider towing, instructing, air taxi etc to enable to get the experience? I personally dont think there is. Gliding is unfortunately a dying sport with dwindling numbers and clubs struggling to stay open (as a current glider pilot this is a known fact)
Although I have no experience of air taxi I imagine that it is dying out also with the advent of cheap low cost jet flights i imagine that will be an avenue closed soon as well.
That leaves instructing, and from what i can glean that seems to be a bit of a struggle as well now, for sure if every one of the 2-300 stary eyed OAA 'graduates' each year pursued FI route that would put far to many instructors on the market, surely there arenot that many PPL students and that amount of new instructors would destroy the already low t+c for exisiting career instructors!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Europa
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Experience matters
"Low houred pilots flying airliners with experienced captains has always been safe and will always be safe. End of. Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly hasn't flown a plane. It's about having someone next you in your inexperienced days, nurturing you through the process. Whether you have 1000 hours or 250 hours makes less than no difference. End of."
Beak - disagree entirely with that statement except for:
"It's about having someone next you in your inexperienced days, nurturing you through the process."
That's precisely what Flying Instructors and Training Captains are for but more often than not airlines are relying on line Captains to look after newbies after accelerated Line Training to save costs.
What happens when that experienced guy next to your low houred pilot keels over from food poisoning or heart attack? It does happen.
Speaking with one of the world's best aerobatic pilots (who has seen many friends loose their lives in his 20+ years of display flying) he said you don't really know an aeroplane until you've flown it for at least 1000 hours. And he was talking about a single engined fixed gear aerobatic machine.
1000h on a Seneca 1 in crap weather and no ability to climb above terrain if you end up Single Engine on approach develops more airmanship than sitting in the cruise in a 737 on autopilot.
Yes a 737 has energy and pitch power couples when flown manually, but if one goes off the end of a runway it is big news with more than 150 lives at stake cf a Seneca accident.
Unless the low houred FO is given the input by the training Captain and allowed to practice flying skills they are learning very little and their SA and instrument scan will suffer.
"Low houred pilots flying airliners with experienced captains has always been safe and will always be safe"
Define always safe. What about accident/incidents like these?
Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Uncorrected poor technique led trainee to land A320 hard
The other issue is going straight from a 200h flight school course to a shiny airliner means crew can loose handling skills and have not developed basic airmanship beyond what is needed to get by. That combined with poor pay and conditions and fatigue is a recipe of disaster.
Here are some cases of slightly higher hour FOs who went this route (ie: flight school straight into glass cockpit automated machines):
Air Accidents Investigation: 3/2009 G-THOF
http://www.ntsb.gov/dockets/aviation...027/431209.pdf
Beak - disagree entirely with that statement except for:
"It's about having someone next you in your inexperienced days, nurturing you through the process."
That's precisely what Flying Instructors and Training Captains are for but more often than not airlines are relying on line Captains to look after newbies after accelerated Line Training to save costs.
What happens when that experienced guy next to your low houred pilot keels over from food poisoning or heart attack? It does happen.
Speaking with one of the world's best aerobatic pilots (who has seen many friends loose their lives in his 20+ years of display flying) he said you don't really know an aeroplane until you've flown it for at least 1000 hours. And he was talking about a single engined fixed gear aerobatic machine.
1000h on a Seneca 1 in crap weather and no ability to climb above terrain if you end up Single Engine on approach develops more airmanship than sitting in the cruise in a 737 on autopilot.
Yes a 737 has energy and pitch power couples when flown manually, but if one goes off the end of a runway it is big news with more than 150 lives at stake cf a Seneca accident.
Unless the low houred FO is given the input by the training Captain and allowed to practice flying skills they are learning very little and their SA and instrument scan will suffer.
"Low houred pilots flying airliners with experienced captains has always been safe and will always be safe"
Define always safe. What about accident/incidents like these?
Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Uncorrected poor technique led trainee to land A320 hard
The other issue is going straight from a 200h flight school course to a shiny airliner means crew can loose handling skills and have not developed basic airmanship beyond what is needed to get by. That combined with poor pay and conditions and fatigue is a recipe of disaster.
Here are some cases of slightly higher hour FOs who went this route (ie: flight school straight into glass cockpit automated machines):
Air Accidents Investigation: 3/2009 G-THOF
http://www.ntsb.gov/dockets/aviation...027/431209.pdf
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Qatar
Age: 33
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to deviate off-topic, but with regards to the "poor landing technique"....Was it divulged what exactly he was doing wrong, coming in at too low a pitch or what? That story amazes me.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: north yorkshire
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
don't underrate your status
Having supported a graduate through all the processes of training
pl, atpl, instrument rating, crewing. jet rating line training etc. It really cheeses me off when the likes of Ryan Air and now Easy jet can pay new pilots less than a bus driver to fly nearly 200 people. When the job comes back pilots should ensure that they raise their status to where it should be as professionals. Don't put yourselves down, I have a wide range of graduate professional qualifications and would regard the training a jet pilot goes through as more than equivalent. Start thinking we not just me.
pl, atpl, instrument rating, crewing. jet rating line training etc. It really cheeses me off when the likes of Ryan Air and now Easy jet can pay new pilots less than a bus driver to fly nearly 200 people. When the job comes back pilots should ensure that they raise their status to where it should be as professionals. Don't put yourselves down, I have a wide range of graduate professional qualifications and would regard the training a jet pilot goes through as more than equivalent. Start thinking we not just me.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: in a van down by the river
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fireflybob: excellent post! I found it fascinating that the article was dated from 1966. Amazing that the salary of the First Officer and Captain was more in 1966 than it is today at many airlines. I don't no whether to laugh or cry (maybe I'll throw my fist through the computer monitor while laughing and then cry?)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Europa
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Todays "integrated" schemes are SOLD on the open market. They are no-where near as good as the old Kemble/Approved BA , Lufthansa flgiht schools. The latter were much closer to Military flight training with seriously challenging entry tests.
The point is folk expect to jump straight out of flight school (where they are not even taught spin recovery because the approved schools have removed their aerobatic a/c for cost reasons) into a Jet job.
The Military do not do this. Take the RAF - Entry tests then EFT, streaming according to ability then Multi Engine (turboprop B200) or DHFS(Turbo rotor!) or BFT (Turbo prop!). If FJT streamed it's Valley on Hawk, then Tactical (Hawk), then OCU (type rating and line training!) before SQN.
This is a real progression. It develops the best students to the highest level. The Hudson Ditching may well have been different if the FO was a 200h cadet as the cockpit workload would have increased hugely.
The point is folk expect to jump straight out of flight school (where they are not even taught spin recovery because the approved schools have removed their aerobatic a/c for cost reasons) into a Jet job.
The Military do not do this. Take the RAF - Entry tests then EFT, streaming according to ability then Multi Engine (turboprop B200) or DHFS(Turbo rotor!) or BFT (Turbo prop!). If FJT streamed it's Valley on Hawk, then Tactical (Hawk), then OCU (type rating and line training!) before SQN.
This is a real progression. It develops the best students to the highest level. The Hudson Ditching may well have been different if the FO was a 200h cadet as the cockpit workload would have increased hugely.