P2F Cancer of Aviation (merged)/ petitions.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of the last few posts are demonstrating how some have no idea about how the industry and training system works post type rating. I think its best these people not posting anything.
P2F affects safety. The airlines that are involved in P2F are exposing themselves to more risk and our profession is all about reducing risk, to as close to zero as we can.
Now, OBVIOUSLY BA and other airlines will use whatever crew compliment they need to, including 3rd/safety pilots for those moving from the sim to the line for line training etc.
HOWEVER, these are guys whose training has been monitored from their selection. They are PAID employees and they can be chopped at anytime.
They do not have to sell their souls to a training organisation or an airline that will give them a couple of hundred hours and then put them back on the dole. They are not people that will need to go and get a second job to make ends meet. They are not people that will have to live in as cheap accommodation as they can find in order to keep their expenses down. They are not people who have to worry about increasing levels of debt.
Having P2F people sitting in a flight deck diminishes safety more than having a cadet / new hire full time employees training in the same flight deck.
Castigate me if you want for that comment but the time when it will be proven will be when theres an accident and in my opinion, thats not the right time to find out and act.
Terms and conditions aside, this is a safety issue. It needs to be addressed as such and it needs to be dealt with as such and if the people on here who train these guys, do it against their will for fear of recrimination and reprisals, then that reduces safety even further and i would therefore urge the trainers to back the reduced safety angle as that is the only way this will ever be eradicated because it will be picked up by the press and that will force the airlines that engage in this process to cease.
There are some very good and qualified drivers on the dole. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THE AIRLINES SHOULD BE CREWING THEIR FLIGHT DECKS WITH not P2F candidates.
There are P2F wannabees on the dole also, because they have ben put there by the next P2F candidate. Will they ever learn..........probably not.
So i have voted with both feet, i wont be flying EasyJet again as long as they continue this practice. Its no disrespect at all to the trainers in EasyJet, its just how can i expect the travelling public to get p****d off at this if im prepared to travel myself with the airlines that engage in this practice. If a professional body exposes its own practices as being unsafe, trust me, people will listen and companies will have to act.
And hopefully the insurance industry will pick up on this too and significantly raise the premiums of the airlines in question. In an economic climate when everyone wants to increase margins, im sure insurance companies are just looking for a reason to raise premiums, so letters and protest emails should also be sent to insurance brokers and underwriters.
GW
Global Warrior of course its your choice which airline you fly on.
However your posts show hints of naivety with regard to the airline industry. For trainers to take unilateral action against this would be ridiculous & ill-advised. You might not be aware but TREs would also have to answer to the CAA for their actions as they directly represent the authority.
I can assure you that the standards for each stage of training are not compromised for any trainees. If they don't reach the standard then they will not progress. I can also assure you that the CAA have the highest regard for Easyjet training which is much to do with training management as well as the trainers.
However your posts show hints of naivety with regard to the airline industry. For trainers to take unilateral action against this would be ridiculous & ill-advised. You might not be aware but TREs would also have to answer to the CAA for their actions as they directly represent the authority.
I can assure you that the standards for each stage of training are not compromised for any trainees. If they don't reach the standard then they will not progress. I can also assure you that the CAA have the highest regard for Easyjet training which is much to do with training management as well as the trainers.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However your posts show hints of naivety with regard to the airline industry
Secondly, any training department, be they and airline or a TRTO can speak up about their concerns on safety, either to the company or directly to the CAA. If any P2F airline training department doesnt want to speak out (assuming they have reasons to of course)...... thats a choice, not one that i agree with, but its a choice. It does not make me naive at all. If a whole training department, one that commands respect, declares that the P2F practice compromises safety, either to the company or the CAA, they would be listened to.
i am certainly not advocating some kind of militant action at all. Far from it, but one other contributor has drafted a letter which is a start in the right direction but.......... i fear, after reading the first 2 lines......... some may perceive it as being £120,000 a year pilots whinging and as such, it will not get nearly the same impact as people who start pushing the safety angle, even if done anonymously and thats what i would really like to promote........ the erosion of safety.
One of the problems with the way this P2F business has been dealt with on this web site, is it comes across too much as, ......"the airline is using a cheaper pilot than me"........ ie market forces........ "and so im whinging and whining about it". It comes across like a CSD saying "sod off, im not pushing a trolley"...... prima donna ish.
I, however, believe that there is a very real safety impact associated with P2F. Naivety may actually end up being on behalf of the people that could have spoken out about this and didn't because they thought no one would listen.
By the sounds of it, none of the companies operating these schemes have ever been given a reason not to. The one department that could give clear reasons as to why this practice should be done away with is the training department. Safety culture is so important. Preventing its erosion even more so.
Of course, its also possible that i am a lone voice in the wilderness and every airline that promotes the P2F model believes that there is absolutely no compromise to safety what so ever.
I just dont believe it.
GW
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The nub of this thread, before it gets derailed, is the old Bottom Line v Safety debate. And whilst the EZY TRE's comments are encouraging who wouldnt say their company has the best safety culture?
You only have to look at earlier posts on this thread and the the other thread http://www.pprune.org/terms-endearme...ng-j-curd.html to see, what appears to be, experienced pilots questioning the safety culture which is emerging.
No-one doubts the training quality at EZY. Its very high. As is BA. As is BMI. The problem is, is that industry leaders are setting a very dangerous precedent. Other companies are not as well resourced as the above airlines and the Bottom Line consideration is a higher priority than safety, although clearly they would never admit it.
And it doesnt stop there either. Some companies have exploited this trend, blatantly deceiving young wannabess with nothing to show for it. http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airpo...ek-merged.html
Its got to stop - we are destroying the integrity of our own industry.
You only have to look at earlier posts on this thread and the the other thread http://www.pprune.org/terms-endearme...ng-j-curd.html to see, what appears to be, experienced pilots questioning the safety culture which is emerging.
No-one doubts the training quality at EZY. Its very high. As is BA. As is BMI. The problem is, is that industry leaders are setting a very dangerous precedent. Other companies are not as well resourced as the above airlines and the Bottom Line consideration is a higher priority than safety, although clearly they would never admit it.
And it doesnt stop there either. Some companies have exploited this trend, blatantly deceiving young wannabess with nothing to show for it. http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airpo...ek-merged.html
Its got to stop - we are destroying the integrity of our own industry.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cloud Cookoo Land
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are talking about BALPA then BALPA members must make it clear to the union that they want them to act upon this. This has to come from a broad spectrum of members.
BALPA are keen to use the slogan 'You are BALPA.' If enough members contact BALPA and request action then BALPA must move. However it needs to be pushed and continually followed up. There has to be some form of petition or balloting of its members to show the degree of support that this has. This would take a great deal of time and effort on behalf of those wishing to push BALPA to publicly denounce PTF and drive a campaign to the airlines, the DofT and the CAA.
So an external group of members must manage an action plan which will lobby the support of current members who wish to see the end of PTF. It is then taken to BALPA who would have no alternative but to act - surely?? If not the words 'hammer, nail and coffin' come to mind - for BALPA and its inaction at the behest of its members
BALPA are keen to use the slogan 'You are BALPA.' If enough members contact BALPA and request action then BALPA must move. However it needs to be pushed and continually followed up. There has to be some form of petition or balloting of its members to show the degree of support that this has. This would take a great deal of time and effort on behalf of those wishing to push BALPA to publicly denounce PTF and drive a campaign to the airlines, the DofT and the CAA.
So an external group of members must manage an action plan which will lobby the support of current members who wish to see the end of PTF. It is then taken to BALPA who would have no alternative but to act - surely?? If not the words 'hammer, nail and coffin' come to mind - for BALPA and its inaction at the behest of its members
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: @ some hotel far away from everything
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It sounds something like this "Ladies and gents, this is your trainee speaking. I, as you, have paid for the privilege to be onboard this aircraft. I pay lots more than you guys, thus I get to sit way up front with all the buttons. Oh, and I also get to talk on the radio. It`s pretty neat! There are always other people talking on the radio. They tell me where to go and where everybody else should go. By some miracle it all seems to work out. Oh well, only 50 more hours of my training contract and I`ll be replaced by another trainee who also will put more gray hairs on the head of this guy on my left hand side with 3 more stripes than myself. He`s pretty tired, so I said I`ll keep a lookout while he takes a powernap. Y`all have a nice flight now, and let`s hope these voices on the radio tell us t go somewhere pleasant." 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe someone should come up with a campaign name.....then write a letter that leaves no one in any doubt as to the serious safety issues, quote directly from the AAIB report, which the Flight International Mag article below does and scare the c**p out of those reading and then mail it to all balpa reps, the media, etc etc and keep pushing it. It MUST be factually correct also. The other letters suggested IMHO dont go on about the safety issues enough and as there has already been an incident that is attributable to this scheme, i think its only right this should form the body of the letter.
Uncorrected poor technique led trainee to land A320 hard
By David Kaminski-Morrow
Inquiries into a serious hard-landing accident by a MyTravel Airways Airbus A320 in Greece have revealed that instructors had repeatedly expressed concerns over a trainee co-pilot's landing techniques in the weeks before.
In the wake of last year's incident at Kos, the operator - now Thomas Cook Airlines - introduced additional specific simulator training, focusing on landing techniques, and a tighter review process for assessing students' progress. It also requires training captains to undertake specific landing handling training before instructing relatively-inexperienced student pilots.
During a VOR/DME approach to Kos on 5 July 2007, the aircraft flared late and struck the runway hard, with a deceleration that registered 3.15g. After the initial contact, the captain immediately took over but the aircraft bounced another three times before settling. Both main-gear assemblies were damaged and subsequently replaced.
While sloping terrain before the runway can make the Kos approach deceptive, the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) points out that the trainee pilot - who had 381hr, with 147hr on type - had previously come under scrutiny for poor landing technique.
The pilot had started commercial jet training, under a scheme affiliated with the carrier, six months before the incident. During extensive A320 simulator work his landing abilities became "recurring theme of concern", but the AAIB adds: "Although instructors identified that more time needed to be spent training the co-pilot to land, this time was not found and the training was repeatedly deferred."
Doubts persisted through base training and then line training, and relevant landing technique notes were made a "number of times" with many earlier comments being repeated.
"The aircraft demands a relatively high level of 'assured' skill from the trainee their ability to land the aircraft correctly, consistently, should not be in doubt before base training commences and certainly not in doubt during line training where passengers are carried," says the AAIB's inquiry.
Flight-data monitoring in May and June 2007 showed that the co-pilot was involved in further firm landings, and he underwent additional training. After the Kos accident, the airline's flight safety department found that, during line training, the captain had intervened in a third of the co-pilot's 28 landings.
The AAIB's inquiry, while acknowledging issues with the Kos approach, concentrates heavily on the co-pilot's training, pointing out that detailed analysis of his landing technique was not recorded until after several sessions of formal simulator training, long after instructors were aware of a strong need for improvement.
It also states that his line training deviated from guidelines in the carrier's operations manual, with respect to the consistency of instructor and aircraft type, and the proportion of daylight landings.
"Many of the factors relevant to this serious incident were discussed at an operator's training meeting, slightly more than a week before the accident," says the AAIB. "It is very possible that, had the accident not occurred so soon after this meeting, the operator would have had time to put measures into place addressing many of the factors associated with this event."
Links posted in this story:
By David Kaminski-Morrow
Inquiries into a serious hard-landing accident by a MyTravel Airways Airbus A320 in Greece have revealed that instructors had repeatedly expressed concerns over a trainee co-pilot's landing techniques in the weeks before.
In the wake of last year's incident at Kos, the operator - now Thomas Cook Airlines - introduced additional specific simulator training, focusing on landing techniques, and a tighter review process for assessing students' progress. It also requires training captains to undertake specific landing handling training before instructing relatively-inexperienced student pilots.
During a VOR/DME approach to Kos on 5 July 2007, the aircraft flared late and struck the runway hard, with a deceleration that registered 3.15g. After the initial contact, the captain immediately took over but the aircraft bounced another three times before settling. Both main-gear assemblies were damaged and subsequently replaced.
While sloping terrain before the runway can make the Kos approach deceptive, the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) points out that the trainee pilot - who had 381hr, with 147hr on type - had previously come under scrutiny for poor landing technique.
The pilot had started commercial jet training, under a scheme affiliated with the carrier, six months before the incident. During extensive A320 simulator work his landing abilities became "recurring theme of concern", but the AAIB adds: "Although instructors identified that more time needed to be spent training the co-pilot to land, this time was not found and the training was repeatedly deferred."
Doubts persisted through base training and then line training, and relevant landing technique notes were made a "number of times" with many earlier comments being repeated.
"The aircraft demands a relatively high level of 'assured' skill from the trainee their ability to land the aircraft correctly, consistently, should not be in doubt before base training commences and certainly not in doubt during line training where passengers are carried," says the AAIB's inquiry.
Flight-data monitoring in May and June 2007 showed that the co-pilot was involved in further firm landings, and he underwent additional training. After the Kos accident, the airline's flight safety department found that, during line training, the captain had intervened in a third of the co-pilot's 28 landings.
The AAIB's inquiry, while acknowledging issues with the Kos approach, concentrates heavily on the co-pilot's training, pointing out that detailed analysis of his landing technique was not recorded until after several sessions of formal simulator training, long after instructors were aware of a strong need for improvement.
It also states that his line training deviated from guidelines in the carrier's operations manual, with respect to the consistency of instructor and aircraft type, and the proportion of daylight landings.
"Many of the factors relevant to this serious incident were discussed at an operator's training meeting, slightly more than a week before the accident," says the AAIB. "It is very possible that, had the accident not occurred so soon after this meeting, the operator would have had time to put measures into place addressing many of the factors associated with this event."
Links posted in this story:
Last edited by Global Warrior; 31st Mar 2010 at 15:34.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good example GW.
Is anyone else aware either through personal experience, company bulletins or press articles incidents which, specifically, involve low houred P2F? Company and individual names may need to be witheld....
I, personally, am aware of low houred pilots (i.e. straight out of school) attempting to fly into the wrong airport, staying below the glide path, speed degradation, even problems of rudder use during LPC/OPC EFATO drills - incidents which contradict basic flying skill (despite the person originating from a well known flying school) and where the TC/Captain, after PACE protocol, has had to take control.
At the very least it will attempt to build a picture of how prevalent the danger is and at the best will provide some evidence which can formulate support for any arguement.
PP
Is anyone else aware either through personal experience, company bulletins or press articles incidents which, specifically, involve low houred P2F? Company and individual names may need to be witheld....
I, personally, am aware of low houred pilots (i.e. straight out of school) attempting to fly into the wrong airport, staying below the glide path, speed degradation, even problems of rudder use during LPC/OPC EFATO drills - incidents which contradict basic flying skill (despite the person originating from a well known flying school) and where the TC/Captain, after PACE protocol, has had to take control.
At the very least it will attempt to build a picture of how prevalent the danger is and at the best will provide some evidence which can formulate support for any arguement.
PP
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cloud Cookoo Land
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WingoWango
Sorry my experience level with this sort of matter is as limited as yours I'm afraid. I have only been a fully fledged BALPA member for little over a year and a half and have had very little dealings with them. My earlier post relating to your question of how the pilot fraternity moves to abolish PTF was merely my own opinion on how to get BALPA to act. I have no idea how many members BALPA has and therefore couldn't tell you what proportion would be needed in order to ensure a BALPA led campaign is perused. Approach company councils is an idea, however BALPA holds many members who's company may not have formal representation (Ryanair, Jet2) or who work for airlines outside the UK. However PTF could eventually effect each and every member at some stage in their career. So it needs to be a universal effort from across the spectrum of the BALPA membership in my opinion. I agree that this sort of thing will be difficult to organise and administrate, however a battle against something like PTF needs to be staged by something with a certain degree of clout. The only clout that we have in the UK (as a group of individuals) is, unfortunately or not, BALPA.
Global Warrior
Believe me, your letter addressing the very real safety concerns of PTF has already been attempted. A colleague of mine showed me the response received from the DofT (Paul Clark - Under Sec of State for Transport). He ignored references to the AAIB report of the Kos incident and the associated safety concerns of PTF - such as crew rest (citing Colgan Air where the flight crew couldn't afford accomadation) and psychological issues associated with the high levels of debt and job uncertainty related to PTF. Instead Mr Clarke detracted from these points and focused on the fact self sponsored flight training has been alive and well in the UK for quite some time (no sh1t sherlock) and that cadet pilots have been placed in airlines up and down the country. He went on to say that airline training programs are highly regulated (as we know) and the flight and duty limitations schemes are adopted and regulated within all airlines (again as we know). Talk about blatantly ignoring the point! But then what do you expect from a politician!?!
Sorry my experience level with this sort of matter is as limited as yours I'm afraid. I have only been a fully fledged BALPA member for little over a year and a half and have had very little dealings with them. My earlier post relating to your question of how the pilot fraternity moves to abolish PTF was merely my own opinion on how to get BALPA to act. I have no idea how many members BALPA has and therefore couldn't tell you what proportion would be needed in order to ensure a BALPA led campaign is perused. Approach company councils is an idea, however BALPA holds many members who's company may not have formal representation (Ryanair, Jet2) or who work for airlines outside the UK. However PTF could eventually effect each and every member at some stage in their career. So it needs to be a universal effort from across the spectrum of the BALPA membership in my opinion. I agree that this sort of thing will be difficult to organise and administrate, however a battle against something like PTF needs to be staged by something with a certain degree of clout. The only clout that we have in the UK (as a group of individuals) is, unfortunately or not, BALPA.
Global Warrior
Believe me, your letter addressing the very real safety concerns of PTF has already been attempted. A colleague of mine showed me the response received from the DofT (Paul Clark - Under Sec of State for Transport). He ignored references to the AAIB report of the Kos incident and the associated safety concerns of PTF - such as crew rest (citing Colgan Air where the flight crew couldn't afford accomadation) and psychological issues associated with the high levels of debt and job uncertainty related to PTF. Instead Mr Clarke detracted from these points and focused on the fact self sponsored flight training has been alive and well in the UK for quite some time (no sh1t sherlock) and that cadet pilots have been placed in airlines up and down the country. He went on to say that airline training programs are highly regulated (as we know) and the flight and duty limitations schemes are adopted and regulated within all airlines (again as we know). Talk about blatantly ignoring the point! But then what do you expect from a politician!?!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: McMurray, Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear PPRUNE members:
I have been following this thread and would like to draw some parallels to a case in the US. You may remember the case of the Continental Express Q-400 turboprop that crashed in Buffalo, NY last January. This crash occurred just weeks after the USAirways flight 1459 landed in the Hudson River.
The National Transportation Board faulted crew rest, training, and is also questioning the entire pay concept at the regional airline level. The low pay brings out things like pilots living in crash pads and commuting across the country because they cannot afford to live in base. While the NTSB and the FAA will not mandate wage scales, this accident has provided the impetus for raising the licensing standards and requiring both pilots to hold an ATP as a minimum. This bill is in the House now and a similar bill is being worked on in the Senate, although the ATP requirement may be watered down.
The FAA is charged with the safety of the traveling public, and our independent Union, USAPA, the US Airways Pilots Association, and CAPA, the coalition of Airline Pilots association, an industry trade group is having some success in pointing out the low pay poor training and minimal standards of these operations. We are stressing that allowing minimum standard pilots to operate aircraft under the paint scheme and marketing arrangement of the mainline carrier partner is fostering a fraud on the traveling public.
The public responds to safety issues and allowing training to go on during revenue flights by pilots who are not on the airline payroll, who are not employees of the airline and who may not meet the minimum standards for employment, but meet only the minimum standards for licensing, if there is such a distinction in the UK, is a safety travesty. The public is being duped and paying good money for tickets on Carriers that are regulated by the appropriate UK authorities. The public is buying tickets on an Airline, not an airline training school. The certification of an airline is something I would presume to be done in the public interest for the purpose of providing efficient and safe air transportation.
This is the equivalent of having discount brain surgery provided by first year med students on a pay for practice scheme. It reminds me of the Monty Python sketch where Mr. Gumby goes to the Brain Surgeon, Dr Gumby and says “My brain hurts.” Dr. Gumby says, “It will have to come out.”
Pay2fly or (PFT), pay for training, as we call it on this side of the pond needs to die a horrible death or at least in the words of Dr. Gumby, “It will have to come out.” One of the ways to get the public on your side is to focus on the safety aspects of this issue and point out that an accident may not have yet occurred in the UK due to this but accidents where minimal training was cited as causal factor have recently occurred in the US.
I have been following this thread and would like to draw some parallels to a case in the US. You may remember the case of the Continental Express Q-400 turboprop that crashed in Buffalo, NY last January. This crash occurred just weeks after the USAirways flight 1459 landed in the Hudson River.
The National Transportation Board faulted crew rest, training, and is also questioning the entire pay concept at the regional airline level. The low pay brings out things like pilots living in crash pads and commuting across the country because they cannot afford to live in base. While the NTSB and the FAA will not mandate wage scales, this accident has provided the impetus for raising the licensing standards and requiring both pilots to hold an ATP as a minimum. This bill is in the House now and a similar bill is being worked on in the Senate, although the ATP requirement may be watered down.
The FAA is charged with the safety of the traveling public, and our independent Union, USAPA, the US Airways Pilots Association, and CAPA, the coalition of Airline Pilots association, an industry trade group is having some success in pointing out the low pay poor training and minimal standards of these operations. We are stressing that allowing minimum standard pilots to operate aircraft under the paint scheme and marketing arrangement of the mainline carrier partner is fostering a fraud on the traveling public.
The public responds to safety issues and allowing training to go on during revenue flights by pilots who are not on the airline payroll, who are not employees of the airline and who may not meet the minimum standards for employment, but meet only the minimum standards for licensing, if there is such a distinction in the UK, is a safety travesty. The public is being duped and paying good money for tickets on Carriers that are regulated by the appropriate UK authorities. The public is buying tickets on an Airline, not an airline training school. The certification of an airline is something I would presume to be done in the public interest for the purpose of providing efficient and safe air transportation.
This is the equivalent of having discount brain surgery provided by first year med students on a pay for practice scheme. It reminds me of the Monty Python sketch where Mr. Gumby goes to the Brain Surgeon, Dr Gumby and says “My brain hurts.” Dr. Gumby says, “It will have to come out.”
Pay2fly or (PFT), pay for training, as we call it on this side of the pond needs to die a horrible death or at least in the words of Dr. Gumby, “It will have to come out.” One of the ways to get the public on your side is to focus on the safety aspects of this issue and point out that an accident may not have yet occurred in the UK due to this but accidents where minimal training was cited as causal factor have recently occurred in the US.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Way 2 go...
Forgive my ignorance Grendel (typical self-effacing Brit 
) but are you saying that PTF schemes are relatively embryonic in the US and even at this early stage safety issues/incidents are being highlighted?
) but are you saying that PTF schemes are relatively embryonic in the US and even at this early stage safety issues/incidents are being highlighted?
speed degradation, even problems of rudder use during LPC/OPC EFATO drills
For what it is worth this issue should be broached by Balpa head office/NEC, on a similar vein to their European FTL campaign.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair point Right Way Up. Perhaps referring to the LPC/OPC element would be a mistake: However all other incidents outside of standard training should be considered as an indication of a flight safety issue???
BALPA - BALPA: FTL CHANGE NEEDED
....this issue should be broached by Balpa head office/NEC, on a similar vein to their European FTL campaign.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: McMurray, Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear PP,
The PFT or Pay2fly is not a relatively new concept but it has been limited somewhat by the realities of the US marketplace. The only PFT scheme I am currently aware of is an outfit in Florida, called Gulf Coast Airlines, or Gulf Coast aviation.
The have a PFT scheme and flight school for the BE-1900. They fly as a code share partner for several major carriers and fly to the islands from MIA and FLL. The are the only one i am aware of right now.
Because the Regional industry was in such a growth mode for the past decade in the US, so many low time pilots were hired to fly RJ's that no large aircraft carrier had to use PFT types for his operation. The woods were full of pilots with several thousand hours of jet time, even if it was in the right seat, they made good candidates. If they had some left seat time all the better.
PFT in the US to date has been only applied at the lowest level of the industry, like small turboprop operators. I am not aware of any larger air carrier using this method yet.
Cheers.
The PFT or Pay2fly is not a relatively new concept but it has been limited somewhat by the realities of the US marketplace. The only PFT scheme I am currently aware of is an outfit in Florida, called Gulf Coast Airlines, or Gulf Coast aviation.
The have a PFT scheme and flight school for the BE-1900. They fly as a code share partner for several major carriers and fly to the islands from MIA and FLL. The are the only one i am aware of right now.
Because the Regional industry was in such a growth mode for the past decade in the US, so many low time pilots were hired to fly RJ's that no large aircraft carrier had to use PFT types for his operation. The woods were full of pilots with several thousand hours of jet time, even if it was in the right seat, they made good candidates. If they had some left seat time all the better.
PFT in the US to date has been only applied at the lowest level of the industry, like small turboprop operators. I am not aware of any larger air carrier using this method yet.
Cheers.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is alas, some serious misinformation on this thread. The comments of the ill-informed, such as Global Warrior, do not help. Added to that, there are people writing to MPs who have failed to check their facts fully. When their letters are checked it will do not favours to the cause of those wishing to end this type of employment practice. There are many people reading this debate who are not airline pilots and they are being falsely led to the view that UK airlines apart from the blessed British Airways are crazily eroding safety standards in the pursuit of saving money.
An unfortunate issue of safety pilots has been mentioned on this thread. For those who do not understand what is happening it may be worth explaining. Safety pilots are used by ALL companies (including Global Warrior's blessed BA) and are there, surprisingly enough, to ensure safety! They are carried in the early sectors of a trainee's Line Training and would be there to ensure that the Training Captain does not miss something critical and to take over in the event of his demise. As the trainee proves himself capable, the safety pilot can be removed, but only after he has successfully demonstrated his ability to land the aircraft unassisted and without danger to the occupants. The idea that BA does not use safety pilots because it is intrinsically more safe is just rubbish and totally removed from reality. We at easyJet are currently training ex-737 pilots, some of whom have in excess of 10,000 hours time on the Boeing, onto the Airbus - they too have to have a safety pilot for the first few sectors. It is also worth mentioning that the majority of current captains at BA all began their career as 200 hour cadets on BA aircraft. The doubters would do well to listen to the excellent comments of Wingswinger, who is ex-RAF fast jet instructor, ex-BA captain and current easyJet TRE. I completely concur with his views.
In this debate, it is important to understand that the term 'p2f' is not strictly accurate. The schemes associated with this term have actually been evolving over the last 2 or 3 years and it is really not accurate to call them all 'pay-to-fly'. The pure 'p2f' schemes, like JC's original one initially mentioned here were not good. A way appeared by which meaningful selection could be avoided and young lads (and in some cases old lads!) with a few bob to spare could fulfil their ambtion and effectively pay for 150 hours of line training on a Boeing or an Airbus. The Thomas Cook accident referred to previously on this thread by Global Warrior involved one of those individuals who lacked the basic apptitude to fly a jet airliner. EasyJet also, in my view unwisely, 'employed' 32 of these guys 2 years ago. Only about half got to the end of their 150 hour line training and the Head of Training kicked the scheme into touch. I would have to say that that period represented the lowest point we have had in terms of the standard of pilot employed. We still had the same safety standards, but it was hard to credibly say the selection process was fully intact. However, the world has moved on - it is vital that people do not think that easyJet is filling its cockpits full of the wrong people because that is absolutely not the case. It is, of course, true to say that a 200-hour pilot is more vulnerable to making signficant mistakes than a pilot with 5000 hours+ on type. Clearly that is true, but that has been the case since the dawn of time. BA are no different and have a long history employing properly selected cadets. They offset the initial risk by the presence of experienced Captains and embracing the advantage of grabbing a pilot at an early stage to indoctrinate him/her with the best of BA thinking. The current 'p2f' schemes as they are known, are totally different beasts than their predecessors. The paying element is forcing someone to buy a type rating. There are, however, 2 key differences - the first being that the pilot is paid once they start flying. The pay is not great but they are paid nonetheless. The second key difference is that the selection process to allow these candidates to reach an easyJet cockpit has been substantially tightened up. I am not justifying the current terms and conditions being applied to our newest FOs, but I am saying that they are not pure pay-to-fly schemes in the way that some here understand them to be. We have talented and capable pilots being given the best possible training and being closely supervised during the line training process. That is exactly how a responsible airiline should work and we at easyJet have one of the best TRTOs in Europe. I am not asking anyone to support the terms and conditions, but I am strongly suggesting that the safety card being played here is neither appropriate nor accurate.
An unfortunate issue of safety pilots has been mentioned on this thread. For those who do not understand what is happening it may be worth explaining. Safety pilots are used by ALL companies (including Global Warrior's blessed BA) and are there, surprisingly enough, to ensure safety! They are carried in the early sectors of a trainee's Line Training and would be there to ensure that the Training Captain does not miss something critical and to take over in the event of his demise. As the trainee proves himself capable, the safety pilot can be removed, but only after he has successfully demonstrated his ability to land the aircraft unassisted and without danger to the occupants. The idea that BA does not use safety pilots because it is intrinsically more safe is just rubbish and totally removed from reality. We at easyJet are currently training ex-737 pilots, some of whom have in excess of 10,000 hours time on the Boeing, onto the Airbus - they too have to have a safety pilot for the first few sectors. It is also worth mentioning that the majority of current captains at BA all began their career as 200 hour cadets on BA aircraft. The doubters would do well to listen to the excellent comments of Wingswinger, who is ex-RAF fast jet instructor, ex-BA captain and current easyJet TRE. I completely concur with his views.
In this debate, it is important to understand that the term 'p2f' is not strictly accurate. The schemes associated with this term have actually been evolving over the last 2 or 3 years and it is really not accurate to call them all 'pay-to-fly'. The pure 'p2f' schemes, like JC's original one initially mentioned here were not good. A way appeared by which meaningful selection could be avoided and young lads (and in some cases old lads!) with a few bob to spare could fulfil their ambtion and effectively pay for 150 hours of line training on a Boeing or an Airbus. The Thomas Cook accident referred to previously on this thread by Global Warrior involved one of those individuals who lacked the basic apptitude to fly a jet airliner. EasyJet also, in my view unwisely, 'employed' 32 of these guys 2 years ago. Only about half got to the end of their 150 hour line training and the Head of Training kicked the scheme into touch. I would have to say that that period represented the lowest point we have had in terms of the standard of pilot employed. We still had the same safety standards, but it was hard to credibly say the selection process was fully intact. However, the world has moved on - it is vital that people do not think that easyJet is filling its cockpits full of the wrong people because that is absolutely not the case. It is, of course, true to say that a 200-hour pilot is more vulnerable to making signficant mistakes than a pilot with 5000 hours+ on type. Clearly that is true, but that has been the case since the dawn of time. BA are no different and have a long history employing properly selected cadets. They offset the initial risk by the presence of experienced Captains and embracing the advantage of grabbing a pilot at an early stage to indoctrinate him/her with the best of BA thinking. The current 'p2f' schemes as they are known, are totally different beasts than their predecessors. The paying element is forcing someone to buy a type rating. There are, however, 2 key differences - the first being that the pilot is paid once they start flying. The pay is not great but they are paid nonetheless. The second key difference is that the selection process to allow these candidates to reach an easyJet cockpit has been substantially tightened up. I am not justifying the current terms and conditions being applied to our newest FOs, but I am saying that they are not pure pay-to-fly schemes in the way that some here understand them to be. We have talented and capable pilots being given the best possible training and being closely supervised during the line training process. That is exactly how a responsible airiline should work and we at easyJet have one of the best TRTOs in Europe. I am not asking anyone to support the terms and conditions, but I am strongly suggesting that the safety card being played here is neither appropriate nor accurate.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Top Bunk
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Norm,
If I may be so familiar.
I have had the dubious "pleasure" of flying with some of the products of
the Sleasy "pay to fly" school.
It's not pretty
Flying is just that. FLYING
Not simply a button pusher with 200 hours and no practical experience
If I may be so familiar.
I have had the dubious "pleasure" of flying with some of the products of
the Sleasy "pay to fly" school.
It's not pretty
Flying is just that. FLYING
Not simply a button pusher with 200 hours and no practical experience
Last edited by 45989; 31st Mar 2010 at 19:30.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cloud Cookoo Land
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EZY
I was under the assumption that a PTF scheme was being trialed between OAA/Parc and EZY. Involved Oxford Integrated students investing in a SSTR and then 75 line hours through EZY. There was no obligation on EZY to offer a contract and if so it would be via Parc on a fly when required basis at £50 per hour. Is this a dead duck?
Going with what NSF says, the selection at EZY is meaningful and the guys that they decide to take on have the ability - that i don't doubt. Whether they be OAA or CTC sourced. However the investment in line hours by OAA students appears to be PTF, even if it could eventually lead to some degree of employment with the partner airline.
Going with what NSF says, the selection at EZY is meaningful and the guys that they decide to take on have the ability - that i don't doubt. Whether they be OAA or CTC sourced. However the investment in line hours by OAA students appears to be PTF, even if it could eventually lead to some degree of employment with the partner airline.
Last edited by Callsign Kilo; 31st Mar 2010 at 22:01.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gloves off
Me thinks it is about time to stop talking about "Pay to fly". Those paying for line training or hours in the seat and when program is finished taking a salary that hardly pays for food are actually paying to work, paying to do the same job I and most of the people I know, want to be paid a salary for.
I've seen salaries drop and conditions worsen in the last 10 years to the extent that my income today is roughly half what it was in 2000. I can only see this getting worse as there are more and more people around willing to pay to sit in the seat rather than get paid for it.
I cannot imagine a truck or a bus driver actually paying an employer thousands of euros to drive a vehicle? Or a Nurse or a Paramedic doing the same with a company providing rescue services or with a hospital.
Flying commercial jets for the purpose of air transport is a bloody job not a hobby. If people want hobbies they can rent a fartcart like a Cessna 150 and drill holes to the sky, well thats how I see it.
I've seen salaries drop and conditions worsen in the last 10 years to the extent that my income today is roughly half what it was in 2000. I can only see this getting worse as there are more and more people around willing to pay to sit in the seat rather than get paid for it.
I cannot imagine a truck or a bus driver actually paying an employer thousands of euros to drive a vehicle? Or a Nurse or a Paramedic doing the same with a company providing rescue services or with a hospital.
Flying commercial jets for the purpose of air transport is a bloody job not a hobby. If people want hobbies they can rent a fartcart like a Cessna 150 and drill holes to the sky, well thats how I see it.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 42
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are we going to do then
Ok Ladies and Gents,
I think we are all pretty much of the same opinion here. We need to get rid of this awful level of exposure of our profession.
How are we going to actually combat it.
Press?
Government?
Boycott BALPA?
We have to do something. Lets do something about this.
What do you all think is the best way to sort this out.
Handflown.
I think we are all pretty much of the same opinion here. We need to get rid of this awful level of exposure of our profession.
How are we going to actually combat it.
Press?
Government?
Boycott BALPA?
We have to do something. Lets do something about this.
What do you all think is the best way to sort this out.
Handflown.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good arguement NSF but there are some flaws...
I am not asking anyone to support the terms and conditions, but I am strongly suggesting that the safety card being played here is neither appropriate nor accurate.
I refer the honourable gentleman to post #50. The fact someone pays to get onto a flying program of sorts is an indication of Bottom Line over and above safety - surely you cant expect anyone to believe that if a candidate was that good but didnt have the funds you would still accept them? So where's the meritocracy?
For the most part the safety culture is strong at senior airline level...and I am sure PTF relationships/cadet programs will continue to evolve to ensure that that remains the case. However as senior players they do drive change in our industry and as such they are a beacon for future industry development - setting precedents as they go.
EasyJet also, in my view unwisely, 'employed' 32 of these guys 2 years ago. Only about half got to the end of their 150 hour line training and the Head of Training kicked the scheme into touch
- Is having an impact on safety in other parts of the industry
- Is degrading T&Cs, effecting job prospects
- Is being used to exploit young pilots
You may well flag up the efforts gone to make EZY safer - I dont doubt it, I graciously applaud you for it. But the overall nature of what is being done and the signal it sends will impact on a broader scale. Your present the reality of the PTF as seen from EZY, but sometimes the perception of what is happeining (over and above reality) is enough to facilitate a change we would all rather avoid.
Perhaps the answer here is to see more actual hands on involvement with candidate selection and training at FTO level? If its happening (Flybe?) then let the industry know, otherwise the safety card you are playing will never be vindicated - especially when it comes to senior airlines accepting money from pilots to train/fly with them.