Things have to get worse before they can get better
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: california
Age: 66
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't, believe that I mentioned anything about being a safe Pilot. I take the view that both you and I are safer Pilots with the experience we have. I would hope that we are aware that complacency could be an issue and we try to avoid it. I would imagine that your cadets from 15 years ago are safer now and have improved skills and judgment than they did when you first flew with them.
That simply is my point, if you aim to hire the most experienced Pilots you can then you will be hiring people who have reached a higher point of personal development and that generally will be safer.
I know that does not fit the concept which the British fto's would like but it is the safer way.Twenty years ago when the main form of training was "self improver", the current type of FTO would have been the better option. Now that most people have been through structured training to obtain a license it makes no sense to ignore experience or personal development.
That simply is my point, if you aim to hire the most experienced Pilots you can then you will be hiring people who have reached a higher point of personal development and that generally will be safer.
I know that does not fit the concept which the British fto's would like but it is the safer way.Twenty years ago when the main form of training was "self improver", the current type of FTO would have been the better option. Now that most people have been through structured training to obtain a license it makes no sense to ignore experience or personal development.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Polax52, it is an interesting debate because I agree with you to some extent and disagree to some extent. It depends where we are setting the volume control.
Although the previous reply was focused on cadets and low experience pilots, we (as a company) recruit a balanced portfolio of pilots from three sources. The cadets (low experience) come from full time integrated courses provided by one of the major FTO's. The other two sources are "experienced pilots." These are usually pilots with at least a few thousand hours of relevant airline experience. This group divides into two sub-groups. Experienced type rated pilots and experienced non-type rated pilots. Alongside the latter, the third group (also usually non-type rated) are the Military career changers.
It would be extremely rare to find "problem" pilots within any of these groups. All sources are well trained and the transition is invariably an easy one. Modern notech and CRM training tends to eliminate what used to be the occasional and very rare difficulty with the switch from a military background to a civilian training environment. Experienced pilots from other airlines are usually seeking personal career advancement or employment following redundancy for whatever reason. In any event the training background from the usual and preferred sources is (of course) invariably similar to our own.
However, experience does not automatically equate to safety as I am sure you would agree, and given that my next flight will be with a pilot from any of these backgrounds, I have no concerns on any score.
Turning that clock back 20 years you didn't find "self improvers" with 250 hours turning up on a Monday morning. Why? Simply because there weren't any. In those days the minimum (non-approved) hour requirement for a CPL (in the UK) was 700 hours. Even then, this was not a benchmark qualification for most airlines. Most "self improvers" reached this plateau and then used it to spring their way through G.A, air taxi, third and second tier airlines, to eventually get themselves the 2000-3000 hours that was often the first interview ticket for the Jet operators. Despite this experience, it has to be said that where "problems" did arise it was nearly always through this group. Given the often fractious and variable backgrounds that was perhaps not particularly surprising. Having said that, those "problem" cases probably averaged around 20% of which maybe 5% were beyond cost or time effective redemption.
Then of course there are a number of very proficient F/O's who do not make the grade deemed "command standard." Of course these become very experienced pilots, and very experienced F/O's. However does that "personal development" make them safer? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no! There can be occasions when it becomes problematic, and certainly it is something that you would want to try and avoid importing.
The group (and it is a very big group) who are left out of all of this, are the new 250 hour CPL holders, who thought the two thirds reduction in basic hours requirement, was their ticket to the stars. However improved the modular syllabus, it is often still a fractious, un-mentored and highly variable background. The CPL is now basically an "aerial work" licence in much the same way as it always has been in the USA and most other countries. It is the basic requirement to be a flying instructor, (previously a PPL would satisfy that requirement in the UK,) and embark on the stepping stone jobs. The reduction from 700 hours to 250 hours simply opened the floodgates to thousands and thousands of wannabes whilst at the same time many of the traditional "stepping stone" jobs started to disappear. For an airlines cadet programme they want what they perceive as the best, not least because they are not paying the cost of that initial training. Even if they were, they view these courses as surety for the standard of cadet that they want. They can monitor (and mentor in some cases) the entire basic training regime in a way no other system provides.
Although the previous reply was focused on cadets and low experience pilots, we (as a company) recruit a balanced portfolio of pilots from three sources. The cadets (low experience) come from full time integrated courses provided by one of the major FTO's. The other two sources are "experienced pilots." These are usually pilots with at least a few thousand hours of relevant airline experience. This group divides into two sub-groups. Experienced type rated pilots and experienced non-type rated pilots. Alongside the latter, the third group (also usually non-type rated) are the Military career changers.
It would be extremely rare to find "problem" pilots within any of these groups. All sources are well trained and the transition is invariably an easy one. Modern notech and CRM training tends to eliminate what used to be the occasional and very rare difficulty with the switch from a military background to a civilian training environment. Experienced pilots from other airlines are usually seeking personal career advancement or employment following redundancy for whatever reason. In any event the training background from the usual and preferred sources is (of course) invariably similar to our own.
However, experience does not automatically equate to safety as I am sure you would agree, and given that my next flight will be with a pilot from any of these backgrounds, I have no concerns on any score.
Turning that clock back 20 years you didn't find "self improvers" with 250 hours turning up on a Monday morning. Why? Simply because there weren't any. In those days the minimum (non-approved) hour requirement for a CPL (in the UK) was 700 hours. Even then, this was not a benchmark qualification for most airlines. Most "self improvers" reached this plateau and then used it to spring their way through G.A, air taxi, third and second tier airlines, to eventually get themselves the 2000-3000 hours that was often the first interview ticket for the Jet operators. Despite this experience, it has to be said that where "problems" did arise it was nearly always through this group. Given the often fractious and variable backgrounds that was perhaps not particularly surprising. Having said that, those "problem" cases probably averaged around 20% of which maybe 5% were beyond cost or time effective redemption.
Then of course there are a number of very proficient F/O's who do not make the grade deemed "command standard." Of course these become very experienced pilots, and very experienced F/O's. However does that "personal development" make them safer? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no! There can be occasions when it becomes problematic, and certainly it is something that you would want to try and avoid importing.
The group (and it is a very big group) who are left out of all of this, are the new 250 hour CPL holders, who thought the two thirds reduction in basic hours requirement, was their ticket to the stars. However improved the modular syllabus, it is often still a fractious, un-mentored and highly variable background. The CPL is now basically an "aerial work" licence in much the same way as it always has been in the USA and most other countries. It is the basic requirement to be a flying instructor, (previously a PPL would satisfy that requirement in the UK,) and embark on the stepping stone jobs. The reduction from 700 hours to 250 hours simply opened the floodgates to thousands and thousands of wannabes whilst at the same time many of the traditional "stepping stone" jobs started to disappear. For an airlines cadet programme they want what they perceive as the best, not least because they are not paying the cost of that initial training. Even if they were, they view these courses as surety for the standard of cadet that they want. They can monitor (and mentor in some cases) the entire basic training regime in a way no other system provides.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of Watford
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can only speak for ezy but in the last year or so there has been an improvement. Once selected there is a clearly defined path through cadetship to first officer to senior first officer to captain. Pay rises as the pilot progresses. Once a permanent contract is awarded a host of benefits become available including a wide range of bases. Command opportunities are still good compared to many companies and you are employed by one of the most secure airlines in the world.
For cadets we are a good bet, I feel we have yet to properly open ourselves up to ex military, TP and flying instructor candidates. I believe there will be more picked up in the next batch of recruitment.
Things have changed in the last 5 years with much of the training/cost risk transferred to the individual. But the flip side; I left a secure job with good T&Cs 15+ years ago and against the advise of many friends and family joined a fledgling upstart of a company which kidded itself it could take on the established European flag carriers. Few people gave easyJet much hope and derided those who took the gamble. There is rarely a guarantee in life. My risk was throwing a good career away to join easyJet; today's gamble is to invest in yourself to earn an opportunity.
It is all too easy to become negative about the pilot market nowadays but the truth is that there are many times more jobs now than 5,10,15+ years ago so what are you going to do to make it happen?
For cadets we are a good bet, I feel we have yet to properly open ourselves up to ex military, TP and flying instructor candidates. I believe there will be more picked up in the next batch of recruitment.
Things have changed in the last 5 years with much of the training/cost risk transferred to the individual. But the flip side; I left a secure job with good T&Cs 15+ years ago and against the advise of many friends and family joined a fledgling upstart of a company which kidded itself it could take on the established European flag carriers. Few people gave easyJet much hope and derided those who took the gamble. There is rarely a guarantee in life. My risk was throwing a good career away to join easyJet; today's gamble is to invest in yourself to earn an opportunity.
It is all too easy to become negative about the pilot market nowadays but the truth is that there are many times more jobs now than 5,10,15+ years ago so what are you going to do to make it happen?
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: On the road
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pros and cons of Low experience. The 2 camps. Those talking of smoking holes (I wince when I hear that it's a bit daily mail). Those liberally talking up how wonderful cadets are, trainable alert pups. How the experienced guys can be bad old dogs too, with unchangeable spots. Its all a bit blurry and hard to generalise. Call me old fashioned but exceptions aside on the whole the more experienced guys have been there/seen it more. It's why TREs aren't cadets, you can't emulsion over that stuff. As a young guy when I got to that stage where you feel a bit sure having got your eye into the job, you know all the books, have read about lots of stuff and consider yourself a sharp young dog and a bit up to speed only to find myself in a situation where I learned off the experienced guy and got bumped back to ground, realising you can't fast track that stuff.
What you don't hear about is how experience helped in such and such a situation and the low hour guy learned that day or came away a little less sure of his hithertoo bulletproof self assured abilities. Or conversely how the long in the tooth guy thought he knew it all then had some new SOP pointed out to him by a new fella. We've all been there it works both ways.
I don't think it's really it to be honest. I think all the talk of smoking holes is just people venting their annoyance. It's easier to talk of smoking holes- shouldnt the authorities step in bla bla, than basically admit what really is getting right up a lot of people's nostrils. With thousands of hours and flying on the wrong type you can't join bla airline yet such and such with a large funding stream, through CTC can see himself through to the front row seats at BA for example but said BA will not take on the direct guy. The game has changed, years ago you did your time on smaller stuff and took your Blinking turn like we all did. When BA took cadets they still took DEP, same with other airlines.
I try to be impartial, it is what it is and you've got to deal with it. I sure wish I had 80 odd grand and no experience if it meant I stood a chance of joining the worlds favourite at the minute
. Maybe I should burn my licence and logbooks 
? Actually if I had 80 odd grand I'd spend it on my kids future but I'm an old git
What you don't hear about is how experience helped in such and such a situation and the low hour guy learned that day or came away a little less sure of his hithertoo bulletproof self assured abilities. Or conversely how the long in the tooth guy thought he knew it all then had some new SOP pointed out to him by a new fella. We've all been there it works both ways.
I don't think it's really it to be honest. I think all the talk of smoking holes is just people venting their annoyance. It's easier to talk of smoking holes- shouldnt the authorities step in bla bla, than basically admit what really is getting right up a lot of people's nostrils. With thousands of hours and flying on the wrong type you can't join bla airline yet such and such with a large funding stream, through CTC can see himself through to the front row seats at BA for example but said BA will not take on the direct guy. The game has changed, years ago you did your time on smaller stuff and took your Blinking turn like we all did. When BA took cadets they still took DEP, same with other airlines.
I try to be impartial, it is what it is and you've got to deal with it. I sure wish I had 80 odd grand and no experience if it meant I stood a chance of joining the worlds favourite at the minute
. Maybe I should burn my licence and logbooks ? Actually if I had 80 odd grand I'd spend it on my kids future but I'm an old git
Last edited by Cliff Secord; 8th Mar 2014 at 22:54.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: usa
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this industry, nothing replaces experience. Experience is gained through hundreds, if not thousands of hours, of flying different aircraft of various complexity through adverse conditions and various abnormal conditions before progressing to the ranks of "airline cadet." In my book, an airline cadet is a multi-thousand hour pilot with years of experience flying as flight instructor, night cargo, air ambulance, etc in all sorts of aircraft. Then, and only then, should they be deemed ready to fly hundreds of passengers. I'm sorry but a 250hr "cadet" has no place whatsoever within the ranks of an airline training department. Those of you who believe it's a good system have simply fallen prey to airline managements' desperate solution to a shortage of QUALIFIED pilots, and the only reason those folks have now made it to 11,000hr training CAs is because they had the good fortune to not experience a life threatening event that required experience they did not have. However, if you want examples of that, look no further than Colgan 3407 and Pinnacle 3701, to name a couple. In both of those cases, had the CA/FOs had the proper seasoning and experience, those crashes would not have happened. I'm not saying accidents don't happen to seasoned experienced airline pilots, but the chances are greatly reduced.
The USA got it right, at least the first stages of it, by requiring 1500hrs and an ATP before flying 121. That's a start. Europe and the rest of the world would be wise to follow...unfortunately it's just a matter of time before something tragic happens to create enough awareness. I'll say it again, low experience has no place in an airline cockpit, folks...and ab-initio programs are by no means a replacement for this.
You want a good ab-initio program? Grab a 3000hr experienced pilot with tons of night/icing/flight instruction/etc, and THEN "sponsor" him/her into an airline. Now you will have a seasoned aviator no stranger to experience who will be slowly immersed into the airline world. The dividends of that are huge. But a 250hr graduate in an A320 or 737 whose CA becomes incapacitated...or worse, flying with a CA that puts them in an unfortunate situation and they don't have the experience nor fortitude to assert themselves to refuse? That is a recipe for disaster. It's just a matter of time, and we've already seen it in the USA.
This is just my humble opinion, but then again I'm a traditionalist and somewhat "old school"... and I believe the past tragedies confirm what I'm talking about.
The USA got it right, at least the first stages of it, by requiring 1500hrs and an ATP before flying 121. That's a start. Europe and the rest of the world would be wise to follow...unfortunately it's just a matter of time before something tragic happens to create enough awareness. I'll say it again, low experience has no place in an airline cockpit, folks...and ab-initio programs are by no means a replacement for this.
You want a good ab-initio program? Grab a 3000hr experienced pilot with tons of night/icing/flight instruction/etc, and THEN "sponsor" him/her into an airline. Now you will have a seasoned aviator no stranger to experience who will be slowly immersed into the airline world. The dividends of that are huge. But a 250hr graduate in an A320 or 737 whose CA becomes incapacitated...or worse, flying with a CA that puts them in an unfortunate situation and they don't have the experience nor fortitude to assert themselves to refuse? That is a recipe for disaster. It's just a matter of time, and we've already seen it in the USA.
This is just my humble opinion, but then again I'm a traditionalist and somewhat "old school"... and I believe the past tragedies confirm what I'm talking about.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Asia
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point aa73. Am 100% with you too.
some mentionned AF447, yes...did you know the pilots were ex-cadets ? they never flown anything then a game boy plane since their school. They did not even recognise a stall...
anyway.
Europe has always been late (like many other countries) compared to USA.
I do believe if USA changed their rules, there is a valid point about that.
So, one day, Europe will change their rule to follow USA, as we always have done. It is just a matter of time.
europe "invented "the JAA world, very close to FAA, just one letter changed actually.
You will see, we will adopt same rules.
some mentionned AF447, yes...did you know the pilots were ex-cadets ? they never flown anything then a game boy plane since their school. They did not even recognise a stall...
anyway.
Europe has always been late (like many other countries) compared to USA.
I do believe if USA changed their rules, there is a valid point about that.
So, one day, Europe will change their rule to follow USA, as we always have done. It is just a matter of time.
europe "invented "the JAA world, very close to FAA, just one letter changed actually.
You will see, we will adopt same rules.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: california
Age: 66
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I couldn't agree more with Green lights and aa73.
Unfortunately this cadet thing is far too engrained particularly in the British aviation culture. Currently it is all about business sense rather than common sense. I doubt anything will change.
Bealzebub makes good arguments in favour of the system but that is because he is part of the system and therefore objectivity is difficult.
My view on how Pilots should be hired is:
- Experience
- verify quality
With cadets you have no experience and verification of quality is difficult.
Unfortunately this cadet thing is far too engrained particularly in the British aviation culture. Currently it is all about business sense rather than common sense. I doubt anything will change.
Bealzebub makes good arguments in favour of the system but that is because he is part of the system and therefore objectivity is difficult.
My view on how Pilots should be hired is:
- Experience
- verify quality
With cadets you have no experience and verification of quality is difficult.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bealzebub makes good arguments in favour of the system but that is because he is part of the system and therefore objectivity is difficult.
If I were going to move away from facts and evidence, I might opine that an Airline Transport Pilots Licence should be the baseline qualification for an Airline transport pilot. Given that this qualification (in the UK, USA, and most other countries) has always had a 1500 hour minimum tariff, that might be regarded as reasonable. The trouble is that it is simply meaningless to the argument. In both of the cited accidents (AF447 & CO3407) not a single one of the crewmembers had less than 1500 hours. The Colgan captain had around 3,300 hours and the first officer 2,200 hours. On Air France the captain had 11,000 hours and the two f/o's 6,600 and 3,000 hours respectively. Not a single one of these pilots would have been precluded by a 1500 hour minimum tariff. The Colgan captain had a history of numerous failed check rides during his training and was regularly commuting some 1200 miles from his home in Florida. The first officer was also regularly commuting 3000 miles from her home in Seattle. Fatigue was cited as a likely contributory factor.
I suppose you could whack up the requirements in the UK to a full ATPL and 1500 hours as a statutory minimum. That would add £70,000 to the ab-initio training bill as you send them off to flog up and down the Florida coastline filling up a logbook. Would that experience make those "cadets" even safer pilots? You might think so, I have doubts that the experience gained would be relevant in most cases. Of course one resultant effect would be to eliminate a huge swathe of hopefuls who would now simply be priced out of the game. £50K plus £70K as against £80K plus £70K.
Experience didn't prevent either of these two exemplar accidents, nor has it prevented hundreds and hundreds of others over the previous eleven decades. On the other hand quality of training /examination and far more relevant training may well have done so. This is what we aim for with our cadet programmes and I am not sure we need to look West for leadership on that score. This is a training regime that has a 50 year pedigree in the UK.
Experience is one of those words rather like discrimination. It comes in good and bad forms but is often mis-used to support a weak argument. Some of the examples given here simply don't provide evidence for the conjecture.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The USA got it right, at least the first stages of it, by requiring 1500hrs and an ATP before flying 121. That's a start. Europe and the rest of the world would be wise to follow...unfortunately it's just a matter of time before something tragic happens to create enough awareness. I'll say it again, low experience has no place in an airline cockpit, folks...and ab-initio programs are by no means a replacement for this.
As for GA, air taxi etc, don't make us laugh...anything involving MEPs or single pilot is considered much more demanding than going straight out of integrated flight school to an A320. Apart from the fact that other than bizjets commercial GA is almost non-existent now in western Europe.
All you guys talking about "smoking holes" are going to be waiting a long time I think...especially if we are talking about the likes of Ryanair/easyJet. I don't see too many of their planes off runways or at the wrong airport...unlike their equivalents in the US supposedly flown by "experienced" crews.
Surprised someone hasn't blamed AF447 on the MPL yet...
Join Date: May 2005
Location: usa
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contact tower ,
Where do they get that experience? Simple. They get all their ratings up to and including CFI. Then they spend the next year or two flight instructing. Flight instructing is one of the absolute best ways to build PIC confidence when one has low hours. Having to let and watch a student put a plane in a precarious position and learn the skills of when to take over is a priceless commodity that will come in handy much later on, when one is an FO or CA that needs to learn when to step in and when not. It also builds a lot of confidence in the early stages of one's career.
Then - after a year or two of that, one should progress to a more demanding level such as check hauling, night freight, air taxi, ambulance, etc. At that point, our pilot will have much more experience and confidence to be able to handle the more demanding aspects of single pilot 135 ops.
What I'm getting at here is simply that an airline pilot job should be the PINNNACLE of one's career, instead of a starting point, achievable after many years and thousands of hours gaining experience on the building blocks. Think of an airline pilot position as the very top of a pyramid whose foundation is built with the experience I mentioned above. Then, and only then, will your "novice airline pilot" be in a position to act safely as a Crewmember, the safety that all passengers demand. A 250 hour pilot freshly released to the line after an ab initio program is a novice in every sense of the word, and does not belong in that cockpit... I don't care how stringent the program is. There is no substitute for years of experience complete with a few of those "crap, I'm gonna die" experiences we've all had in our careers.
To suggest that a 135 job is a lot more demanding than an airline job may be true in the technical sense, but the airline pilot position carries a LOT more responsibility. However, a 135 job cannot be taken lightly either, and the pilot needs quite a bit of experience to move into one of these jobs as well.
You brought up AF447. Great example... Here we have two graduates of a cadet-type school who had probably never been taught to hand fly a sophisticated airliner at altitude, who did not know how to properly operate the radar in a very TS-prone part of the world. Yet, they promptly put the aircraft in a stall and didn't know how to recover. And yet again, they were "properly qualified", having graduated from ab-initio courses that are so highly lauded. Now, I know that the Airbus-style cockpit and controls may have contributed to this, but again, there is no substitute for experience. I'd much rather have had two FOs up there who had "paid their dues " in the industry flying thousand of hours in all kinds of aircraft/weather, prior to being hired by Air France. And I'll say the same for Ryanair and all the others.
No, I'm not breathlessly waiting for an incident or accident to prove my point; I sincerely hope it never happens again. But I don't need to, because it's already happened, and will happen again. The point here is that we can take steps to proactively PREVENT it from happening again, and that is to require our novice airline pilots to have the required experience first.
The MPL is simply one step further down than the ab initio programs, and represents yet another step in the degradation of our careers. I have SERIOUS issues with this program. It is a recipe for disaster.
Guys, get out there and pay your dues. Get that experience that will more than pay itself off some day in an airline cockpit. Rushing into an airline cockpit is akin to rushing to an accident scene. There is no room for inexperience here. As an example, I had 1500TT when hired into the right seat of a regional airliner, the Jetstream 4100. I had put in several years of flight instruction, charter, air ambulance. And even THEN, it was tough flying and adjusting! Going to the right seat of a multi engine turboprop required EVERYTHING I had experienced and then some. Many times in the beginning I felt overwhelmed. I can't even BEGIN to think how a 250hr pilot would have handled it. Even today, with 11,000hrs, i am still using the basics I learned when teaching a student to land a C152 in a crosswind, in my 737 today. I ESPECIALLY use my weather experience as an air ambulance pilot, in my 737 today. All of that experience translates into the safest flight I can give my passengers today, and I know they're grateful for it. And yet, up until last year we were putting 250hr pilots at Eagle, Colgan, etc. We've seen the results of that haven't we?
I'll conclude with this: I believe that in the pilot profession in Europe and other parts of the world, the "new norm" is to pay your way to the cockpit. Thanks to supply and demand, in conjunction with airlines desperate to cut costs, the airlines can take full advantage and the result is what we have. Believe me, it is absolutely detrimental to the pilot profession and represents a big part of the spiral downward.
Where do they get that experience? Simple. They get all their ratings up to and including CFI. Then they spend the next year or two flight instructing. Flight instructing is one of the absolute best ways to build PIC confidence when one has low hours. Having to let and watch a student put a plane in a precarious position and learn the skills of when to take over is a priceless commodity that will come in handy much later on, when one is an FO or CA that needs to learn when to step in and when not. It also builds a lot of confidence in the early stages of one's career.
Then - after a year or two of that, one should progress to a more demanding level such as check hauling, night freight, air taxi, ambulance, etc. At that point, our pilot will have much more experience and confidence to be able to handle the more demanding aspects of single pilot 135 ops.
What I'm getting at here is simply that an airline pilot job should be the PINNNACLE of one's career, instead of a starting point, achievable after many years and thousands of hours gaining experience on the building blocks. Think of an airline pilot position as the very top of a pyramid whose foundation is built with the experience I mentioned above. Then, and only then, will your "novice airline pilot" be in a position to act safely as a Crewmember, the safety that all passengers demand. A 250 hour pilot freshly released to the line after an ab initio program is a novice in every sense of the word, and does not belong in that cockpit... I don't care how stringent the program is. There is no substitute for years of experience complete with a few of those "crap, I'm gonna die" experiences we've all had in our careers.
To suggest that a 135 job is a lot more demanding than an airline job may be true in the technical sense, but the airline pilot position carries a LOT more responsibility. However, a 135 job cannot be taken lightly either, and the pilot needs quite a bit of experience to move into one of these jobs as well.
You brought up AF447. Great example... Here we have two graduates of a cadet-type school who had probably never been taught to hand fly a sophisticated airliner at altitude, who did not know how to properly operate the radar in a very TS-prone part of the world. Yet, they promptly put the aircraft in a stall and didn't know how to recover. And yet again, they were "properly qualified", having graduated from ab-initio courses that are so highly lauded. Now, I know that the Airbus-style cockpit and controls may have contributed to this, but again, there is no substitute for experience. I'd much rather have had two FOs up there who had "paid their dues " in the industry flying thousand of hours in all kinds of aircraft/weather, prior to being hired by Air France. And I'll say the same for Ryanair and all the others.
No, I'm not breathlessly waiting for an incident or accident to prove my point; I sincerely hope it never happens again. But I don't need to, because it's already happened, and will happen again. The point here is that we can take steps to proactively PREVENT it from happening again, and that is to require our novice airline pilots to have the required experience first.
The MPL is simply one step further down than the ab initio programs, and represents yet another step in the degradation of our careers. I have SERIOUS issues with this program. It is a recipe for disaster.
Guys, get out there and pay your dues. Get that experience that will more than pay itself off some day in an airline cockpit. Rushing into an airline cockpit is akin to rushing to an accident scene. There is no room for inexperience here. As an example, I had 1500TT when hired into the right seat of a regional airliner, the Jetstream 4100. I had put in several years of flight instruction, charter, air ambulance. And even THEN, it was tough flying and adjusting! Going to the right seat of a multi engine turboprop required EVERYTHING I had experienced and then some. Many times in the beginning I felt overwhelmed. I can't even BEGIN to think how a 250hr pilot would have handled it. Even today, with 11,000hrs, i am still using the basics I learned when teaching a student to land a C152 in a crosswind, in my 737 today. I ESPECIALLY use my weather experience as an air ambulance pilot, in my 737 today. All of that experience translates into the safest flight I can give my passengers today, and I know they're grateful for it. And yet, up until last year we were putting 250hr pilots at Eagle, Colgan, etc. We've seen the results of that haven't we?
I'll conclude with this: I believe that in the pilot profession in Europe and other parts of the world, the "new norm" is to pay your way to the cockpit. Thanks to supply and demand, in conjunction with airlines desperate to cut costs, the airlines can take full advantage and the result is what we have. Believe me, it is absolutely detrimental to the pilot profession and represents a big part of the spiral downward.
Last edited by aa73; 10th Mar 2014 at 00:36.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: usa
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well John again the above is my opinion and nothing more, however, that opinion has been influenced by crashes directly attributed to pilot inexperience. Yes, it's true that today's airlines in Europe have a great safety record, however, it's important to note that many incidents and accidents that HAVE happened to them can also be attributed to pilot inexperience.
Also, I'm absolutely NOT complaining that others had it easier than me: I think it's a dang shame they, too, never paid their dues and lack that part of experience.
Regarding your comment towards passengers not caring about experience...well, I beg to differ, at least in the US. Regardless of their attitudes, though, we owe it to the pax to be always striving to place experienced pilots in cockpits, not 250hr neophytes.
And despite one of the AF447 FOs being a glider/GA pilot, ok so what? What was his prior experience before AF? He still didn't recognize/recover from a stall? Pretty sure he was a cadet too.
Also, I'm absolutely NOT complaining that others had it easier than me: I think it's a dang shame they, too, never paid their dues and lack that part of experience.
Regarding your comment towards passengers not caring about experience...well, I beg to differ, at least in the US. Regardless of their attitudes, though, we owe it to the pax to be always striving to place experienced pilots in cockpits, not 250hr neophytes.
And despite one of the AF447 FOs being a glider/GA pilot, ok so what? What was his prior experience before AF? He still didn't recognize/recover from a stall? Pretty sure he was a cadet too.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've flown with loads of low hour cadets and have to say that they have all done a great job and none have been out of their depth. However, these have all been carefully selected and had their training monitored from day one. The military has low hour guys fly big jets and why do they not have accidents?
The real problem comes when you hire the lowest common denominator. I'm talking about about taking on pilots because they will pay for training, work for peanuts on a contract;. These are mostly low hour pilots with naive expectations and unshakable optimism. Such pilots appeal to the bean counters that run airlines.
Both the the Colgan and Pinnacle crashes both featured pilots that were graduates of the Gulfstream pay to fly programme. They paid their way into the airlines and had a history of problems. In the UK we had the seemingly forgotten MyTravel accident.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...JZ%2012-08.pdf
This airline was, via an agency charging 35k to low hour pilots for a type rating and line training. One of their customers had failed a sim assesment on the 737 so they decided to put him on the A320. After struggling in the sim (landings) and taking two attempts at the base check (landings) , they let him loose with passengers on line training and......he smashed the aircraft so hard into the deck it was investigated by the AAIB and caused serious damage. Turned out from day one in a Cessna he struggled.
As management hammer away at the terms and conditions this is the kind of pilot that the industry will attract. I suspect that the UK will have its own Pinnacle/Colgan style crash and only then will the regulators act and things start to get better.
The real problem comes when you hire the lowest common denominator. I'm talking about about taking on pilots because they will pay for training, work for peanuts on a contract;. These are mostly low hour pilots with naive expectations and unshakable optimism. Such pilots appeal to the bean counters that run airlines.
Both the the Colgan and Pinnacle crashes both featured pilots that were graduates of the Gulfstream pay to fly programme. They paid their way into the airlines and had a history of problems. In the UK we had the seemingly forgotten MyTravel accident.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...JZ%2012-08.pdf
This airline was, via an agency charging 35k to low hour pilots for a type rating and line training. One of their customers had failed a sim assesment on the 737 so they decided to put him on the A320. After struggling in the sim (landings) and taking two attempts at the base check (landings) , they let him loose with passengers on line training and......he smashed the aircraft so hard into the deck it was investigated by the AAIB and caused serious damage. Turned out from day one in a Cessna he struggled.
As management hammer away at the terms and conditions this is the kind of pilot that the industry will attract. I suspect that the UK will have its own Pinnacle/Colgan style crash and only then will the regulators act and things start to get better.
Last edited by Fair_Weather_Flyer; 10th Mar 2014 at 02:45.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: usa
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair weather flier, that's exactly the type of pilot I'm talking about, and IMHO it's just a matter of time before the bar is lowered enough to the point where all new entrants are of the type you mention.
I understand that Lufthansa, British, etc adhere to a very strict process in recruiting candidates, and that's a good thing. I still maintain however that jetliner duty should only come after a long seasoning.
John Smith.... A couple of classic examples for you to look at would be Korean Air 2033, where the inexperienced FO fought the CA on landing to go around, resulting in an overrun. Another one would be China Air 676, where the inexperienced FO triggered the Toga levers and then didn't know how to get out of it. Granted, two Asian airlines but again the result of low hour, inexperienced FOs who were likewise "carefully chosen" and graduated from these pilot cadet schemes...and could just as easily happen anywhere.
In the end? I still maintain that the airline piloting profession keeps getting driven down to the lowest common denominator by lowering standards for new hires, up to and including cadet pilot schemes. While these are not as bad as the pay to fly schemes, they are not really that far off. Want to fly for an airline? Go get the experience, it can literally save your life in the long run.
I think when we look at the great safety records of these airlines, we are lulled into a false sense of security, being that "there hasn't been enough of these types of accidents, therefore the process must be safe." All it takes is one and that's too many. We've already had two serious ones here in the USA that could have been prevented by more experience... AF447 may not have been directly caused by inexperience but it sure was a big player. To me that's more than enough of a good example.
I understand that Lufthansa, British, etc adhere to a very strict process in recruiting candidates, and that's a good thing. I still maintain however that jetliner duty should only come after a long seasoning.
John Smith.... A couple of classic examples for you to look at would be Korean Air 2033, where the inexperienced FO fought the CA on landing to go around, resulting in an overrun. Another one would be China Air 676, where the inexperienced FO triggered the Toga levers and then didn't know how to get out of it. Granted, two Asian airlines but again the result of low hour, inexperienced FOs who were likewise "carefully chosen" and graduated from these pilot cadet schemes...and could just as easily happen anywhere.
In the end? I still maintain that the airline piloting profession keeps getting driven down to the lowest common denominator by lowering standards for new hires, up to and including cadet pilot schemes. While these are not as bad as the pay to fly schemes, they are not really that far off. Want to fly for an airline? Go get the experience, it can literally save your life in the long run.
I think when we look at the great safety records of these airlines, we are lulled into a false sense of security, being that "there hasn't been enough of these types of accidents, therefore the process must be safe." All it takes is one and that's too many. We've already had two serious ones here in the USA that could have been prevented by more experience... AF447 may not have been directly caused by inexperience but it sure was a big player. To me that's more than enough of a good example.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA331 Boeing 737. Capt. 22 years experience including 2700 hours on type. First officer 10 years experience and 5000 hours on type.
AA587 A300. Capt. 8050 hours including 1723 on type. First officer 4400 hours including 1835 on type.
AA1420 MD82. Capt. 10234 hours including 5518 hours on type. First officer 4292 hours including 182 hours on type.
AA965 Boeing 757. Capt.13000 hours including 2260 hours on type. First officer 5800 hours including 2286 on type.
AA1572 MD83. Capt. 8000 hours including 4230 on type. First officer 5100 hours including 2281 on type.
In just 5 major accidents involving perfectly serviceable airplanes since 1995, resulting in 435 fatalities and a further 110 injuries, you have "experienced" and often very experienced crews at the control. Then there is AA1340, AA102, AA70, AA625, AA385, if you want to go back to 1965 and exclude all the accidents attributed to any form of technical or maintenance error or of course an act of terrorism. Not a cadet in sight and more "experience" than you could shake a stick at.
I wonder what you think aa73?
AA587 A300. Capt. 8050 hours including 1723 on type. First officer 4400 hours including 1835 on type.
AA1420 MD82. Capt. 10234 hours including 5518 hours on type. First officer 4292 hours including 182 hours on type.
AA965 Boeing 757. Capt.13000 hours including 2260 hours on type. First officer 5800 hours including 2286 on type.
AA1572 MD83. Capt. 8000 hours including 4230 on type. First officer 5100 hours including 2281 on type.
In just 5 major accidents involving perfectly serviceable airplanes since 1995, resulting in 435 fatalities and a further 110 injuries, you have "experienced" and often very experienced crews at the control. Then there is AA1340, AA102, AA70, AA625, AA385, if you want to go back to 1965 and exclude all the accidents attributed to any form of technical or maintenance error or of course an act of terrorism. Not a cadet in sight and more "experience" than you could shake a stick at.
I wonder what you think aa73?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: usa
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I think is what I stated above: accidents can and will happen to anyone regardless of experience...such is the nature of our job. But statistically and realistically, experience makes the difference between a non event and an accident. Compare US 1449 with Colgan 3407 just one month later, two accidents with entirely different outcomes thanks to the level of experience.
American had a bad streak in the 90s. USAir did as well. Delta had its share in the 80s. All 3 of these airlines had very experienced pilots at the controls. That is not my point, there is always that possibility that exists; my point is that we can greatly increase safety at the STARTING point of an airline career by hiring experienced pilots instead of neophytes who haven't experienced the real world of flying yet....and the airline world is not the place for that, no matter how good a cadet or an airline program are.
AF447?
China Air 676?
Korean Air 2033?
Colgan 3407?
Pinnacle 3701?
All of these were caused by, or indirectly caused by, weak airmanship by inexperienced pilots. The argument can be made that these maybe wouldn't have happened with more experienced pilots at the controls.
Anyone can nitpick any airline's accident record and pick an argument, but I'm not debating that issue: I'm simply trying to correlate experience with safety. I think that is pretty indisputable. Instead of looking for an easy way into the cockpit based on how much daddy will be paying, get out there and get the experience. I don't see what's wrong with that. Maybe I'm just naive or misinformed by how it's done overseas, but here in the USA we believe that pilots who get tons of experience before taking the controls of a jetliner are the safest bet.
American had a bad streak in the 90s. USAir did as well. Delta had its share in the 80s. All 3 of these airlines had very experienced pilots at the controls. That is not my point, there is always that possibility that exists; my point is that we can greatly increase safety at the STARTING point of an airline career by hiring experienced pilots instead of neophytes who haven't experienced the real world of flying yet....and the airline world is not the place for that, no matter how good a cadet or an airline program are.
AF447?
China Air 676?
Korean Air 2033?
Colgan 3407?
Pinnacle 3701?
All of these were caused by, or indirectly caused by, weak airmanship by inexperienced pilots. The argument can be made that these maybe wouldn't have happened with more experienced pilots at the controls.
Anyone can nitpick any airline's accident record and pick an argument, but I'm not debating that issue: I'm simply trying to correlate experience with safety. I think that is pretty indisputable. Instead of looking for an easy way into the cockpit based on how much daddy will be paying, get out there and get the experience. I don't see what's wrong with that. Maybe I'm just naive or misinformed by how it's done overseas, but here in the USA we believe that pilots who get tons of experience before taking the controls of a jetliner are the safest bet.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: california
Age: 66
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bealzebub and John Smith. I acknowledge that you are very good at making articulate argument against experience and in favour of these cadet programs. It is clear with the Statistics you have to hand that you have been making these arguments for years.
The problem I have is that what you're saying goes against what I have experienced recently. I have been flying heavy jet aircraft outside of the UK. Many of the F/O's were low hour cadets. It was clear with these guys that there was no real selection. You had roughly 40% of them who were good solid Pilots and 60% whose landings varied from poor to dangerous.
I made the point before but I am going to make it again, when I did my course in the UK in the late 80's, it was very hard to pass the initial instrument rating and the GFT's. Rumour had it at the time that the failure rate was around 90%. I am not sure about the accuracy of that figure but it was certainly a lot higher than it is currently. We have moved towards the 100% pass rate, which just shows that the standard of these cadet courses is headed downward.
With these structured courses no longer being an accurate guide toward quality, the only other measure you have is experience. Again from what I have seen, the experienced Pilots I have flown with have all been of acceptable quality, this statement does not apply to ALL low
houred cadets.
However articulate you are at disparaging experience, in reality on the ground it does not make any sense. Good business sense though, I do understand.
Don't compare Europe to the U.S., the U.S. has it's own problems and it is not apples for apples.
The problem I have is that what you're saying goes against what I have experienced recently. I have been flying heavy jet aircraft outside of the UK. Many of the F/O's were low hour cadets. It was clear with these guys that there was no real selection. You had roughly 40% of them who were good solid Pilots and 60% whose landings varied from poor to dangerous.
I made the point before but I am going to make it again, when I did my course in the UK in the late 80's, it was very hard to pass the initial instrument rating and the GFT's. Rumour had it at the time that the failure rate was around 90%. I am not sure about the accuracy of that figure but it was certainly a lot higher than it is currently. We have moved towards the 100% pass rate, which just shows that the standard of these cadet courses is headed downward.
With these structured courses no longer being an accurate guide toward quality, the only other measure you have is experience. Again from what I have seen, the experienced Pilots I have flown with have all been of acceptable quality, this statement does not apply to ALL low
houred cadets.
However articulate you are at disparaging experience, in reality on the ground it does not make any sense. Good business sense though, I do understand.
Don't compare Europe to the U.S., the U.S. has it's own problems and it is not apples for apples.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Crawley
Age: 55
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ezy and RYR are doing their level best to turn it into a two tier industry in the BI with cadets paying to get into the top (jet tier) as a majority - the majority is increasing in percentage as we evolve.
The cadet routes into these two Airlines, although not the much maligned P2F in its truest sense of the word, are the nearest thing to have existed as P2F in the BI for a number of years. I suggest this as an obvious arguable point on the basis of the over the top cost on the schemes, and reduced t's and c's involved.
Modular/Unrated/ex Mil/Air Taxi/Turboprop/Instructors making up the bulk of lower tier (the glass ceiling a TP Commander)
Anybody with a modicum of nous can clearly see it is about the money. It is a cash cow dressed up with fancy words and flawed reasoning. I know in my own outfit the background of the new hire doesnt usually dictate too much of a difference in the standard shown.
There are arguements both for and against. Which are articulately laid out and the benefits are clear to see, they do to my mind, however balance each other out, if I were playing devils advocate I could counter that the benefit all the mentoring the training structure structure et al of the integrated route could be balanced out for example, in a very simple arguement by an ex modular students life skills/experience type of thing
There are many guys out there obviously frustrated, you can clearly see this , and totally understand it, in the threads all over this board with the current situation. This frustration unfortunately spills over on occasion and does dilute the arguement
The "cadet structure applauders" who tend to appear in twos and sometimes even threes all over this forum - as stated I have no issue with your perception that this stream is filled with bonuses, but even you guys must have the basic intelligence to see what damage this percentage of this type of recruitment is doing to the industry as whole. It smacks at the very best of "im all right jack".
The cadet routes into these two Airlines, although not the much maligned P2F in its truest sense of the word, are the nearest thing to have existed as P2F in the BI for a number of years. I suggest this as an obvious arguable point on the basis of the over the top cost on the schemes, and reduced t's and c's involved.
Modular/Unrated/ex Mil/Air Taxi/Turboprop/Instructors making up the bulk of lower tier (the glass ceiling a TP Commander)
Anybody with a modicum of nous can clearly see it is about the money. It is a cash cow dressed up with fancy words and flawed reasoning. I know in my own outfit the background of the new hire doesnt usually dictate too much of a difference in the standard shown.
There are arguements both for and against. Which are articulately laid out and the benefits are clear to see, they do to my mind, however balance each other out, if I were playing devils advocate I could counter that the benefit all the mentoring the training structure structure et al of the integrated route could be balanced out for example, in a very simple arguement by an ex modular students life skills/experience type of thing
There are many guys out there obviously frustrated, you can clearly see this , and totally understand it, in the threads all over this board with the current situation. This frustration unfortunately spills over on occasion and does dilute the arguement
The "cadet structure applauders" who tend to appear in twos and sometimes even threes all over this forum - as stated I have no issue with your perception that this stream is filled with bonuses, but even you guys must have the basic intelligence to see what damage this percentage of this type of recruitment is doing to the industry as whole. It smacks at the very best of "im all right jack".
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They say cadets make better candidates for teaching how to fly multi-crew commercial jet aircraft. Undoubtedly true. Take any 18 year old and pit them off against a 45 year old, who is going to fair better whilst playing a video game? The young, keen, unadulterated nature of youth is always there ready to be exploited for maximum gains in efficiency whilst being able to offer an apprentice rate salary. Applies to most industries, aviation is not unique.
However, you are comparing opposite ends of the spectrum. It's hardly ever like this. If EZY were to add 10 aircraft to the fleet over the next year therefore needing to hire another 50 FOs, recent trends show they would probably hire 50 cadets instead of 50 type rated FOs with 2 years on the line (1,500 hours) who just got laid off. 10,000 hour non-type rated captains (ready and willing to accept FO positions) would not even be on the radar screen.
There is nothing terribly difficult about flying a modern airliner once you have the experience. If a pilot has 2 years+ experience there is nothing that makes them a worse candidate than a cadet with a zero houred type rating and 100% devotion when it comes to a new job opening. The former could be an ex-cadet from another airline that went bust but is now on the market. The current system means the former will have a very low chance of getting hired by the likes of EZY or FR as those airlines almost exclusively turn towards their partnered schools to hire pilots. So, the likes of Beazle seem to be advocating a system where experience works directly against employability.
So whilst cadet hiring has merits, the level to which two of the largest employers of pilots in Europe go about it results in a very disposable pilot community. When you were young, keen and had £84,000 lying around you were a prime candidate. Two years later with some experience and a set of expectations you are considered damaged goods. Cadet recruitment is 25% to do with finding candidates who can learn much more easily and 75% to do with finding the cheapest source of labour. Forget your misguided comparisons between cadets and old boys. Be more realistic, compare the abilities of candidates with a few years experience and cadets. There is not a major difference, except for a financial one.
However, you are comparing opposite ends of the spectrum. It's hardly ever like this. If EZY were to add 10 aircraft to the fleet over the next year therefore needing to hire another 50 FOs, recent trends show they would probably hire 50 cadets instead of 50 type rated FOs with 2 years on the line (1,500 hours) who just got laid off. 10,000 hour non-type rated captains (ready and willing to accept FO positions) would not even be on the radar screen.
There is nothing terribly difficult about flying a modern airliner once you have the experience. If a pilot has 2 years+ experience there is nothing that makes them a worse candidate than a cadet with a zero houred type rating and 100% devotion when it comes to a new job opening. The former could be an ex-cadet from another airline that went bust but is now on the market. The current system means the former will have a very low chance of getting hired by the likes of EZY or FR as those airlines almost exclusively turn towards their partnered schools to hire pilots. So, the likes of Beazle seem to be advocating a system where experience works directly against employability.
So whilst cadet hiring has merits, the level to which two of the largest employers of pilots in Europe go about it results in a very disposable pilot community. When you were young, keen and had £84,000 lying around you were a prime candidate. Two years later with some experience and a set of expectations you are considered damaged goods. Cadet recruitment is 25% to do with finding candidates who can learn much more easily and 75% to do with finding the cheapest source of labour. Forget your misguided comparisons between cadets and old boys. Be more realistic, compare the abilities of candidates with a few years experience and cadets. There is not a major difference, except for a financial one.