P2F Cancer of Aviation (merged)/ petitions.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inquiries into a serious hard-landing accident by a ********* 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.
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
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.
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.
With regards to one training department here, those that have identified themselves as belonging to one particular airline have without exception said that they train these guys but they dont like it!!!! They then have the audacity to criticise me when i say "well if you dont like it ....... do something about it" They then hide behind what a wonderful organisation they are and how well respected they are.
That is probably the case. They are probably well respected and why not. Im sure they do a bloody good job. Im sure its not always strait forward and im sure they have very good and very well respected guys and gals as part of their department....... just like any other UK airline
BUT
it doesnt make them always right.
The excerpts above come from an incident involving another highly respected UK airline, with no doubt a highly respected training department but the comments made by the AAIB (and yes its only a very small part of a very long report) seem to justify the thinking that P2F is bad for the industry. Why would any self respecting airline take a guy with 275 hours to fly in the right seat when there are guys with 3000+ hours on type on the dole.
NSF and his colleagues seem to want to turn this into a personal issue. Im not interested in that. Im interested in getting rid of P2F schemes. However, my belief is that in order to do that, we need to prove that safety is an issue because this story has no legs without it. BALPA are simply not interested for whatever reason. PPRune even takes advertising money from companies that advertise these schemes.
So to NSF and his colleagues, im sure you have a world class training organisation (albeit staffed with people who only read half of whats posted here and then comment negatively) and im sorry if i offend you as that is most definately not my intention. And i totally understand why you are defensive about your product. I think you are a class outfit. I admire the company you work for and the job that gets done.
BUT
I want to see the end of this P2F debacle. You have all agreed that you dont like it either. Im sure its a very bitter sweet pill to swallow but the only way we are going to educate the world about this is through the (lack of) safety issue. No one is going to give a stuff about the erosion of Terms and Conditions. Our Union doesnt so why would anyone else?
The P2F issue has absolutely NO AFFECT what so ever on my Terms and Conditions so i could just wind my neck in as im sure some here would want, which is fine. But i happen to want to lend my experience; 12,000 PIC JET hours to the debate and help scrap P2F. I have no reason to join in being personal but i do fully appreciate the position that those that criticise me are in. If they admit that safety is an issue, its like admitting they are bad at what they do. But i KNOW that that is not the case.
To an extent their hands are tied. But if an airline is going to put 250 Hour pay to fly guys in the right seat, will they then put 1500 hour guys in the left. Will they then populate their training department with 2000 hour pilots. All of the above would save costs. It would be bloody daft but it would save money.
So to continue the theme of the thread, "P2F the cancer of Aviation" needs to be eradicated and the quickest way to do that is to promote (if its actually the case) the erosion of safety as its the only thing that will eventually get all sides on board.
Good Night. Good Luck. God Bless
GW
Last edited by Global Warrior; 31st Mar 2010 at 22:55.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In the clouds above
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right so from reading this thread and the Curd one I think its safe to say that we all universally hate this.
From LTC's who feel exasperated at the constant stream based on bank balance and not always ability,
to time served captains who look back at those starting and see the crap, hoops and costs associated compared to how they got into the business,
to senior first officers who may be thinking that the erosion of T&C's means they are likely not get the same contracts their predecessors did,
to junior F/O's concerned that they be next out the door to allow P2F'ers in,
to unemployed pilots looking to get the first foot on the ladder giving these schemes serious thought,
and to those starting out on this careers to be pilots who may have to add another £35k to the £40k-80k for their initial training due to current precedents being set.
We all hate this, both BALPA and the IPA are aware of the strength of feeling and should feel free to act without a petition from any one of us or an action group forming. Based on the criticism voiced on here and 99% thinking it stinks, the unions running with this could really gain them some serious kudos. They should also look at picking their advertisers more carefully.
I see this argument has moved to covering the safety aspects when it initially seemed to highlight the T&C's and their perceived erosion over time. I know the press will react better to safety than a group that is perceived by the majority of the general public as already well paid and lead a glamorous lifestyle.
The letter is definitely a start however it has to be armed with cast-iron facts and a compelling argument. At present it needs some tweeking, but its mostly there.
Global Warrior ...... excellent post.
From LTC's who feel exasperated at the constant stream based on bank balance and not always ability,
to time served captains who look back at those starting and see the crap, hoops and costs associated compared to how they got into the business,
to senior first officers who may be thinking that the erosion of T&C's means they are likely not get the same contracts their predecessors did,
to junior F/O's concerned that they be next out the door to allow P2F'ers in,
to unemployed pilots looking to get the first foot on the ladder giving these schemes serious thought,
and to those starting out on this careers to be pilots who may have to add another £35k to the £40k-80k for their initial training due to current precedents being set.
We all hate this, both BALPA and the IPA are aware of the strength of feeling and should feel free to act without a petition from any one of us or an action group forming. Based on the criticism voiced on here and 99% thinking it stinks, the unions running with this could really gain them some serious kudos. They should also look at picking their advertisers more carefully.
I see this argument has moved to covering the safety aspects when it initially seemed to highlight the T&C's and their perceived erosion over time. I know the press will react better to safety than a group that is perceived by the majority of the general public as already well paid and lead a glamorous lifestyle.
The letter is definitely a start however it has to be armed with cast-iron facts and a compelling argument. At present it needs some tweeking, but its mostly there.
Global Warrior ...... excellent post.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are two separate issues here. The first is safety. My contention is that because the clear safety implications of the earlier p2f schemes which involved people paying for line training, these schemes have now ceased at easyJet and in many other airlines. It was clearly unacceptable that people with money buy their way into the right seat of a commercial jet without proper selection or receipt of salary. That was an enormously unsuccessful experiment that has quite rightly stopped. The current schemes are different from a safety perspective and should not be compared to the one which led to the accident at Thomas Cook. It is also worth saying that the fact that one of you had a duff day with a 200 hour p2f pilot is hardly a scientific examination of the scheme's success. If it is any consolation, I have had some shocking days out with some FOs with way more hours than that! As I have said previously, a low-houred pilot is vulnerable to making big errors. That is a stage which every one of us went through and we should not be too high and mighty about remembering that. The overwhelming majority of low-houred pilots I fly with are dedicated and keen to learn. I find them a pleasure to be with, and if treated with respect and decency are great colleagues to spend the day with.
The second issue is the continual degredation of terms and conditions to which 747JJ and others refer. That is an altogether different matter. What has become known as p2f (pay-to-fly) is simply a misnomer. It should be p4tr (pay-for-type-rating) as that is a much more accurate description of what is happening. My argument is that because you do not like the p4tr schemes, it does not mean they are intrinsicly unsafe. It does, however, mean that flying has become the pastime of the rich and is not available to people of talent regardless of background. I am not a socialist, but that strikes me as fundamentally unfair. It is also dire to see the truly awful financial offerings that easyJet and others have come up with. As I have said previously, I am not sure how our managers sleep in their beds at night - taking huge bonuses bought and paid for by starvation wages. Nonetheless, the flying rates being achieved are significantly better than those envisaged, and the tales of pilots eating live alley cats and road kills to survive have not yet materialised. And yet the same responses to these Ts&Cs keep appearing - 'the deal is rubbish and I shall leave BALPA in protest'! That folks is insanity and just exaccerbates the problem. If we had every pilot in BALPA, this issue would not have arisen. Every one of you who leaves BALPA in protest are just signing the death warrant of our industry. We are dealing with unscrupulous managers who gladly line their pockets with our money. The only answer is to stick together and fight it out. No doubt these comments will send some of you over the edge, but that is the way it is.
The second issue is the continual degredation of terms and conditions to which 747JJ and others refer. That is an altogether different matter. What has become known as p2f (pay-to-fly) is simply a misnomer. It should be p4tr (pay-for-type-rating) as that is a much more accurate description of what is happening. My argument is that because you do not like the p4tr schemes, it does not mean they are intrinsicly unsafe. It does, however, mean that flying has become the pastime of the rich and is not available to people of talent regardless of background. I am not a socialist, but that strikes me as fundamentally unfair. It is also dire to see the truly awful financial offerings that easyJet and others have come up with. As I have said previously, I am not sure how our managers sleep in their beds at night - taking huge bonuses bought and paid for by starvation wages. Nonetheless, the flying rates being achieved are significantly better than those envisaged, and the tales of pilots eating live alley cats and road kills to survive have not yet materialised. And yet the same responses to these Ts&Cs keep appearing - 'the deal is rubbish and I shall leave BALPA in protest'! That folks is insanity and just exaccerbates the problem. If we had every pilot in BALPA, this issue would not have arisen. Every one of you who leaves BALPA in protest are just signing the death warrant of our industry. We are dealing with unscrupulous managers who gladly line their pockets with our money. The only answer is to stick together and fight it out. No doubt these comments will send some of you over the edge, but that is the way it is.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morning,
I have copied and pasted from an advertiser on this web site.
This looks a lot like a P2F scheme to me.
A Type Rating can be done at a TRTO and following base training, usually 3-6 take offs and landings in the aircraft, the Type can then be added to the licence.
I believe its schemes such as the one above that is being referred to as "the cancer of aviation"
NSF is 100% correct with
And i think that was what this thread was originally about. The question is what is the best way to stick together and fight it out?
Whilst i concur 100% again, my personal feeling is that even 1 incident is 1 too many and if the passengers on that aircraft had had a choice, they may just have exercised their democratic right to either off load themselves or protest. And that is why my feeling is that we HAVE to look at this from an erosion of safety issue because once the press get hold of it, they will probably ask BALPA for their comments and unless BALPA wishes to marginalise itself even more, they will have to come out with an unfavourable comment.
NSF would you be kind enough to educate me as to how your employers scheme is different to the one that is being advertised above because if im going to lend my weight to this cause, its because i want to eradicate the industry of people paying to sit in the RHS of a commercial aircraft during commercial operations whilst receiving "training" in order to fill their log books with time on type.
GW
I have copied and pasted from an advertiser on this web site.
JAA B737 NG Type Rating Course including Aircraft Base Training and VAT
Airline Operator Conversion Course
300 Hours of Actual B737 NG First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations
from €28,000 EUR / £24,800 GBP
JAA A320 Type Rating Course including Aircraft Base Training and VAT
Airline Operator Conversion Course
300 Hours of Actual A320 First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations
from €46,100 EUR / £40,800 GBP
JAA B737 NG type rating course including aircraft base training and VAT
Airline Operator Conversion Course
500 Hours of Actual B737 NG First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations
from €32,500 EUR / £28,800 GBP
JAA A320 NG Type Rating Course including Aircraft Base Training and VAT
Airline Operator Conversion Course
500 Hours of Actual A320 First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations
from €55,800 EUR / £49,400 GBP
Airline Operator Conversion Course
300 Hours of Actual B737 NG First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations
from €28,000 EUR / £24,800 GBP
JAA A320 Type Rating Course including Aircraft Base Training and VAT
Airline Operator Conversion Course
300 Hours of Actual A320 First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations
from €46,100 EUR / £40,800 GBP
JAA B737 NG type rating course including aircraft base training and VAT
Airline Operator Conversion Course
500 Hours of Actual B737 NG First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations
from €32,500 EUR / £28,800 GBP
JAA A320 NG Type Rating Course including Aircraft Base Training and VAT
Airline Operator Conversion Course
500 Hours of Actual A320 First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations
from €55,800 EUR / £49,400 GBP
A Type Rating can be done at a TRTO and following base training, usually 3-6 take offs and landings in the aircraft, the Type can then be added to the licence.
I believe its schemes such as the one above that is being referred to as "the cancer of aviation"
NSF is 100% correct with
The only answer is to stick together and fight it out.
It is also worth saying that the fact that one of you had a duff day with a 200 hour p2f pilot is hardly a scientific examination of the scheme's success
NSF would you be kind enough to educate me as to how your employers scheme is different to the one that is being advertised above because if im going to lend my weight to this cause, its because i want to eradicate the industry of people paying to sit in the RHS of a commercial aircraft during commercial operations whilst receiving "training" in order to fill their log books with time on type.
GW
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only way this process will be banned is if the Authorities do so, and as they are all "independant" this simply will not happen,lobbying MPs, petitioning CAA is all a waste of time. The time and effort would be better placed in pushing for additional approvals for the companies that provide these schemes, perhaps the resultant costs, which would have to be passed on to the candidates, will eventually have the same effect. Many of the TREs that are tied up with these schemes are the same that tread the corridors of power at the CAA and they already have the " Ear of the authority", if they wanted to change things, they could have already done so, fact is that money talks and loyalty is pocket deep.
If I may add my 2 pence worth.I was a base trainer -737 variety with the orange airline represented so eloquently on these pages by NSF.I moved on to an airline painted blue and was employed in the above capacity.We recruited some pilots who had bought type ratings through a well known agency.They had completed their base training in the minimum 6 landings and were holding 737 type ratings.I can vouch for the fact that they could not fly an accurate approach path nor land the aircraft correctly and proficiently as per the Boeing FCTM.In my experience the average cadet pilot with approx 200 hours takes a minimum of 10-14 landings to attain proficiency and safety prior to release for line training.
My point being? The training agencies are selling ratings/packages with a startling lack of scruples or morals.The individuals who bought these ratings appeared unaware of their deficiency yet had been led to believe that they were proficient but manifestly were not.A training captain had signed official paperwork confirming proficiency.The sooner the airline industry wakes up and realises that they have a responsibility to sponsor and develop pilots the better -this will have a financial impact.Also(sorry NSF -I agree with a lot that you sat generally) training pilots should reflect on their responsibilities and refuse to train or participate in pay to fly schemes where cash equates to selection.Personally,if still in the orange world it would have meant adios to training.
atb
My point being? The training agencies are selling ratings/packages with a startling lack of scruples or morals.The individuals who bought these ratings appeared unaware of their deficiency yet had been led to believe that they were proficient but manifestly were not.A training captain had signed official paperwork confirming proficiency.The sooner the airline industry wakes up and realises that they have a responsibility to sponsor and develop pilots the better -this will have a financial impact.Also(sorry NSF -I agree with a lot that you sat generally) training pilots should reflect on their responsibilities and refuse to train or participate in pay to fly schemes where cash equates to selection.Personally,if still in the orange world it would have meant adios to training.
atb
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am mildly surprised, to put it lightly, at the defensive attitude being adopted by some here, which seems to centre on failure to accept one basic principle.
The basic requirement to crew your aircraft with the most suitable (generally speaking most experienced) crew available is being sacrificed at the altar of converting a cost into a revenue stream.
P2F P4TR ? ? Norm, it doesn't matter.
Ryanair would argue that it is easier to take a brand new guy and "educate" him in the ways of Ryanair than "uneducate" him out of his former ways, but they (and you & I ) know that this half fact is just so much BS to divert attention away from the plain fact that TR's are a nice little earner.
Is it safer to crew your aircraft with one of the many experienced F/O's on the market, or safer to have large swathes of the fleet running around with breathless line trainers accompanied by steely eyed youths several nautical miles behind the airframe ? It's a no brainer there, experienced TC's or not (and some of them in that "other" loco are anything BUT experienced, many of the LT's there are VERY new Capt's whilst many of the old hands can't be bothered with the aggro for the small amount of extra dosh on offer) the safer crew will be the one with the overall greater experience.
What makes Easy and some other companies actions so morally repugnant, is that they go one stage further than the Ryanair idea of turning a cost into a revenue stream. As far as I am aware all Ryanair cadets are offered a contract (albeit through an agency, and albeit with the distinct possibility to work less as they become more expensive with hours gained) after they complete, to the required standard, their training.
The easy system appears to thrive on flooding the market with 300/500 hr F/O'S to simply then replace them with another revenue generator.
Just as the guy actually gets some experience he is dumped, as he is no longer actually generating income (working for peanuts ain't enough these days
)
A useful by product of this morally bankrupt policy is that the market is becoming flooded with barely qualified guys, so they are certainly unlikely to be in a position to demand better terms anytime soon.
If it wasn't so disgusting on a human level you could almost admire the elegance of this "solution".
How anyone is able to even begin to see a defensible side to it is beyond me. It is totally and utterly immoral ,thieving from those who should (by virtue of their chosen career ) know better than to fall for it, and I include LTC's in this, because you, are being robbed of your experience and effort, not to build a better safer crew complement for your chosen employer, but to generate additional income.
And, most importantly, it puts revenue before safety, that is incontestable.
A hard working LTC constantly accompanied by some poor debt ridden sod, struggling to survive, unable to pay the rent , and unable to know when he will next be paid (or how much ) cannot in anyones mind be as safe as a properly rested complimentary (in experience) crew with a full time contract.
This other stuff sucks, and it is high time it was sensationalised (it doesn't need much mind you) and fed to the less scrupulous members of the press to regurgitate into something very damaging to the scumbag companies concerned.
The basic requirement to crew your aircraft with the most suitable (generally speaking most experienced) crew available is being sacrificed at the altar of converting a cost into a revenue stream.
P2F P4TR ? ? Norm, it doesn't matter.
Ryanair would argue that it is easier to take a brand new guy and "educate" him in the ways of Ryanair than "uneducate" him out of his former ways, but they (and you & I ) know that this half fact is just so much BS to divert attention away from the plain fact that TR's are a nice little earner.
Is it safer to crew your aircraft with one of the many experienced F/O's on the market, or safer to have large swathes of the fleet running around with breathless line trainers accompanied by steely eyed youths several nautical miles behind the airframe ? It's a no brainer there, experienced TC's or not (and some of them in that "other" loco are anything BUT experienced, many of the LT's there are VERY new Capt's whilst many of the old hands can't be bothered with the aggro for the small amount of extra dosh on offer) the safer crew will be the one with the overall greater experience.
What makes Easy and some other companies actions so morally repugnant, is that they go one stage further than the Ryanair idea of turning a cost into a revenue stream. As far as I am aware all Ryanair cadets are offered a contract (albeit through an agency, and albeit with the distinct possibility to work less as they become more expensive with hours gained) after they complete, to the required standard, their training.
The easy system appears to thrive on flooding the market with 300/500 hr F/O'S to simply then replace them with another revenue generator.
Just as the guy actually gets some experience he is dumped, as he is no longer actually generating income (working for peanuts ain't enough these days
)A useful by product of this morally bankrupt policy is that the market is becoming flooded with barely qualified guys, so they are certainly unlikely to be in a position to demand better terms anytime soon.
If it wasn't so disgusting on a human level you could almost admire the elegance of this "solution".
How anyone is able to even begin to see a defensible side to it is beyond me. It is totally and utterly immoral ,thieving from those who should (by virtue of their chosen career ) know better than to fall for it, and I include LTC's in this, because you, are being robbed of your experience and effort, not to build a better safer crew complement for your chosen employer, but to generate additional income.
And, most importantly, it puts revenue before safety, that is incontestable.
A hard working LTC constantly accompanied by some poor debt ridden sod, struggling to survive, unable to pay the rent , and unable to know when he will next be paid (or how much ) cannot in anyones mind be as safe as a properly rested complimentary (in experience) crew with a full time contract.
This other stuff sucks, and it is high time it was sensationalised (it doesn't need much mind you) and fed to the less scrupulous members of the press to regurgitate into something very damaging to the scumbag companies concerned.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: at the end
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those that feel strongly enough to protest via official means about this cancer to aviation, why not add your vote here.
Petition to: stop airlines receiving payment from pilots in return for flying. | Number10.gov.uk
Petition to: stop airlines receiving payment from pilots in return for flying. | Number10.gov.uk
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Right on the money
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am not a brit, but I'd love to sign on that petition. Do you think you can get 500 signatures just by opening a petition and advertising it on the pprune site?
I think it would be a very good idea to bring it to the attention of the public who is using this service without knowing what's happening behind the doors.
I think it would be a very good idea to bring it to the attention of the public who is using this service without knowing what's happening behind the doors.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
United we stand...
NSF, the length of your responses show that you clearly feel passionate about this topic as does Global Warrior, 747JJ, captplaystation, myself included and others who have contributed to this thread.
Whilst your experiences of PTF or P4TR (package it as you like..) may have been progressive and recently more positive there clearly is gap between your experiences and others' ongoing experiences...resulting in a general voice of concern for future safety. You also highlight that it is the degradation of T&Cs resulting from such schemes which is deplorable - not to mention the lack of meritocracy. Well said.
Your arguement is good news because it shows that we are all agreed, for whatever reason/motive (safety, T&Cs, jobs, etc.. etc...), on one thing: These schemes need to be checked before it impacts on the industry on a wider basis.
Lets not argue our individual causes but lets take action together for the greater good. Sign the petition!
Whilst your experiences of PTF or P4TR (package it as you like..) may have been progressive and recently more positive there clearly is gap between your experiences and others' ongoing experiences...resulting in a general voice of concern for future safety. You also highlight that it is the degradation of T&Cs resulting from such schemes which is deplorable - not to mention the lack of meritocracy. Well said.
Your arguement is good news because it shows that we are all agreed, for whatever reason/motive (safety, T&Cs, jobs, etc.. etc...), on one thing: These schemes need to be checked before it impacts on the industry on a wider basis.
Lets not argue our individual causes but lets take action together for the greater good. Sign the petition!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So far I am only # 13 to sign 
cmon guys, you know , and I know, that politicians are all self serving w@nkers, but, at least sign this thing PDQ and at least put the wheels in motion.
Yours, tacitly optimistically (well not really ) Capt PS.
cmon guys, you know , and I know, that politicians are all self serving w@nkers, but, at least sign this thing PDQ and at least put the wheels in motion.Yours, tacitly optimistically (well not really
) Capt PS.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hangar 69
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NSF
What has become known as p2f (pay-to-fly) is simply a misnomer. It should be p4tr (pay-for-type-rating) as that is a much more accurate description of what is happening.
I'm, just like capt playstation, completely flabbergasted by your somewhat vague reply (waffling about p2f vs p4tr) and it almost reads like your defending these scams by simply raising the selection criteria.
Norm, are you seriously telling us that these EZY cadets are offered a probationary contract after finishing their type rating and a full time contract (with EZY, not some contract agency!) when they finish line training, just like in the old days of TRSS?
JAA B737 NG Type Rating Course including Aircraft Base Training and VAT
Airline Operator Conversion Course
300 Hours of Actual B737 NG First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations
from €28,000 EUR / £24,800 GBP
JAA A320 Type Rating Course including Aircraft Base Training and VAT
Airline Operator Conversion Course
300 Hours of Actual A320 First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations
from €46,100 EUR / £40,800 GBP
JAA B737 NG type rating course including aircraft base training and VAT
Airline Operator Conversion Course
500 Hours of Actual B737 NG First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations
from €32,500 EUR / £28,800 GBP
JAA A320 NG Type Rating Course including Aircraft Base Training and VAT
Airline Operator Conversion Course
500 Hours of Actual A320 First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations
from €55,800 EUR / £49,400 GBP
Joe Wannebe is paying for a service namely a "jet transport type rating" and "First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger operations". No type rating or no line experience would be a breach of contract unless there is unequivical failure to meet training standards, thus there has to be strong pressure on the TRI's to get marginal pilots through. Furthermore since this is a purely profit making venture terminating anyones training will immediately and directly effect tha TRO's bottom line. Bottom line: it is IMPOSSIBLE to maintain training standards in such an environment.
Airline Operator Conversion Course
300 Hours of Actual B737 NG First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations
from €28,000 EUR / £24,800 GBP
JAA A320 Type Rating Course including Aircraft Base Training and VAT
Airline Operator Conversion Course
300 Hours of Actual A320 First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations
from €46,100 EUR / £40,800 GBP
JAA B737 NG type rating course including aircraft base training and VAT
Airline Operator Conversion Course
500 Hours of Actual B737 NG First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations
from €32,500 EUR / £28,800 GBP
JAA A320 NG Type Rating Course including Aircraft Base Training and VAT
Airline Operator Conversion Course
500 Hours of Actual A320 First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations
from €55,800 EUR / £49,400 GBP
Joe Wannebe is paying for a service namely a "jet transport type rating" and "First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger operations". No type rating or no line experience would be a breach of contract unless there is unequivical failure to meet training standards, thus there has to be strong pressure on the TRI's to get marginal pilots through. Furthermore since this is a purely profit making venture terminating anyones training will immediately and directly effect tha TRO's bottom line. Bottom line: it is IMPOSSIBLE to maintain training standards in such an environment.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: >>>My profile has been hacked by a stupid 20 yo moderator<<<...somewhere where people don't speak english! don't point at my mistakes unless you are at ICAO level 7.
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
considering 80% of crashes come from pilot errors, I am sure these P2F schemes increase risks.
in an conventional airline, the standards are above the minimum requirement, illimited simulator...when in P2F, it' s barly the minimum ( 2 hours every 6 months, what a joke!).
how many hours of technical ground school a P2F pilot, probably 0 hour...
How can a P2F pilot report a problem in "his" company without getting an answer like" if you are not happy here, you can leave, you won't get your money back, now go fly and shut it up".
don't forget the VTA., the government love it.
soon a terrible crash will happen! it s not when , but where!.
in an conventional airline, the standards are above the minimum requirement, illimited simulator...when in P2F, it' s barly the minimum ( 2 hours every 6 months, what a joke!).
how many hours of technical ground school a P2F pilot, probably 0 hour...
How can a P2F pilot report a problem in "his" company without getting an answer like" if you are not happy here, you can leave, you won't get your money back, now go fly and shut it up".
don't forget the VTA., the government love it.
soon a terrible crash will happen! it s not when , but where!.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cessnagirl.
unfortunately answer appears to be No, you need to be UK citizen or resident
Can't see Gordie and his mates changing the rules vs petitions just for us "spoiled brats"
unfortunately answer appears to be No, you need to be UK citizen or resident
Can't see Gordie and his mates changing the rules vs petitions just for us "spoiled brats"
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In One word or less do these guys have a valid Type rating or not? do they have a frozen ATPL? and are they being line trained?
How do they operate without a valid type rating.
They only have a PPL
and they are not being line trained ,
How do they operate without a valid type rating.
They only have a PPL
and they are not being line trained ,
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Been around the block
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is simple. Stop paying for type ratings and training and companies will be forced to pay us. I'm 31, I have three types and everyone has been paid for by the company I worked for at the time. Actually, I've been paid while getting training. And as a matter of fact, this pay for experience and training is looked at quite unfavorably in many parts of the world. I know as a fact that a certain captain on the hiring board of a certain airline(the biggest in the world) has flat out told guys that paid for ME time that they're not welcome because they did this in a diplomatic way.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In One word or less do these guys have a valid Type rating or not? do they have a frozen ATPL? and are they being line trained?
How do they operate without a valid type rating.
They only have a PPL
and they are not being line trained ,
How do they operate without a valid type rating.
They only have a PPL
and they are not being line trained ,
The minimum requirements to apply for a course are a Frozen ATPL, which now can be obtained with around 230-250 hours. Multi Crew Course also needs to be completed BUT can be added to the TYPE RATING course itself.
So, once you have a frozen ATPL, you can PAY MORE MONEY to a TRTO that will then put you through the TYPE course. Remember, you are paying yourself, not an employer so the TRTO has some moral issues with whether they will actually tell you you are more likely to shag the pope than have a successful airline career........ besides, they know there is not and endless supply of P2F candidates so anyone with cash is better than no one.
Once you have finally completed the Sim and Ground School part of the course, you have to do the base training....... essentially 6 circuits in the aircraft. Once this is complete, you get the type stamped on your licence and then the airlines that wish to have a 250 Hour unknown in the flight deck, allow you to pay them for the privilege of their training until such time as you reach the magic number of hours that you have previously paid for 300-500 by the looks of some programmes. Then you go back on the dole because in the meantime, some other candidate has found a bank or rich uncle to allow them to go through the same process you have so you are replaced by one of your own.
In the old days.............late 1990's you got a PPL, built up your hours and experience, probably becoming a Flight Instructor on the way and dealing with newbies and the errors they would demonstrate on the way. During this time you have got multi engine qualified and possibly your multi IR on the way. When you had 700 hours, you could do your CPL exams. Once you had a CPL you could apply to the airlines but generally they wanted 1500-2000 hours experience.
In fact if you look at a recent advert for a Mid East airline, they want 3000+ hours, some of it on aircraft heavier than 40 Tonnes.
Now, you can just buy your way in the flight deck of an A320 with 260 hours and get 500 hours of training with trainers that have already admitted on this thread that they dont like training you.
A UK operator has already had serious incident with one of these candidates landing the aircraft. The AAIB notes several points in his training where his abilities were in question but still he was not chopped. Why? Possibly through the fact that as he had paid to be there, they were morally obliged to complete the training and hope that he would become someone else's problem later.
Have there been many more near incidents? We will never know.
One vicious cycle sees the money go from the candidates pocket to
The TRTO, which then divvies it up to the ground instructor and the TRE's that come in to do the sim training......... ive heard at rates of £900 a day but that might not be totally right
Then it goes to the company that provides the aircraft for the base training.............. and the TRE that conducts the base training
Then it goes to the company that you buy the hours from.......... and the TRE / LTC that conducts your line training
As a matter of interest, The TRTO's use a lot of the TRE's of the companies that the candidates eventually go to fly for
So Candidate is happy as he gets a Type and 300-500 hours RHS time in a Jet.
TRTO is happy as it is making money from the candidates dream of being a Real Jet Pilot.
TRE's are happy as they are making a lot of extra wonga
The company is happy as its now got a revenue stream in the Flight Deck rather than an expense.
Problem is........... the fare paying public are not asked if they like this practice and they are not given the choice to travel or not in an aircraft that statistically is more likely to have an incident. Even more likely to have an incident if it was the same aircraft training a full time employee that at any stage could/would be sent for retraining or chopped.
The AAIB accident report for the Kos incident alluded to the fact that the airline should have discontinued his training at several points but for what ever reason (MONEY?) didnt. All airlines if nothing else have a duty of care to their passengers and this one practice operated by the airlines involved are proving that they dont take this duty of care very seriously.
GW
Last edited by Global Warrior; 2nd Apr 2010 at 10:28.