Euro market pilot saturation
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
From: here
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
From: here
Full of immature bimbominkias with daddy's money playing pilot taking selfies in uniform accepting as low as 300 euro a month. But the blame goes to EASA that tolerate this practice and put an approval stamp on ATO's that are just money making substandard " pilot" mills.
Last edited by cucuotto; 2nd January 2020 at 06:10.
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 629
Likes: 1
From: Been around the block
Cessnapete have you flown a 737?
737’s have a very pronounced pitch/power couple due to the underslung engines and conventional flight controls. If you’re low and have no pitch authority reducing thrust is extremely counter intuitive.
Pilots are being trained in a yoyo maneuver that allows trim authority to be recovered but it’s pretty hard to fly.
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 79
Likes: 62
From: homeless
The EU pilot market is saturated by idiots. Pilots are becoming a rarity I mean real ones.
Full of immature bimbominkias with daddy's money playing pilot taking selfies in uniform accepting as low as 300 euro a month. But the blame goes to EASA that tolerate this practice and put an approval stamp on ATO's that are just money making substandard " pilot" mills.
Full of immature bimbominkias with daddy's money playing pilot taking selfies in uniform accepting as low as 300 euro a month. But the blame goes to EASA that tolerate this practice and put an approval stamp on ATO's that are just money making substandard " pilot" mills.
There is a bit of truth in what you are saying. To be honest i created this topic after reading some of your comments in another thread. Lets not be so pessimistic and hope this EU venture will end some day after they realize that pilots are the final link in safety and keeping us happy is the only way to make airlines profitable and our passengers in one piece. I did a simple math and came up with a perfect solution - it only takes 5 euro on top of a ticket price to make our life much better.
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
From: here
Cucuotto,
There is a bit of truth in what you are saying. To be honest i created this topic after reading some of your comments in another thread. Lets not be so pessimistic and hope this EU venture will end some day after they realize that pilots are the final link in safety and keeping us happy is the only way to make airlines profitable and our passengers in one piece. I did a simple math and came up with a perfect solution - it only takes 5 euro on top of a ticket price to make our life much better.
There is a bit of truth in what you are saying. To be honest i created this topic after reading some of your comments in another thread. Lets not be so pessimistic and hope this EU venture will end some day after they realize that pilots are the final link in safety and keeping us happy is the only way to make airlines profitable and our passengers in one piece. I did a simple math and came up with a perfect solution - it only takes 5 euro on top of a ticket price to make our life much better.
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18
Likes: 7
From: Rio de Janeiro
I have never been an airline pilot but I have been a CFI and taught many pilots to pass ATP, with checkrides in both Lear 23D and CE500. The ones who were competent in stick and rudder I did in teh lear of they wanted it. The others ahd to fly the Cessna because i wanted to stay alive myself. I have trained many dozens of pilots from all over the world.
In my very humble view the first and foremost problem is abnormal/emergency procedures training. The second, just as critical is crm. Almost all the accident reports I ever have reviewed have had a combination of both problems.
More simulator training, not less and more recurrency simulator training, not less, can vastly reduce the risks, regardless of hours.
Boeing has gone through hoops to reduce training requirements. Airlines do that too. No secret, simulator training is expensive and emergencies are rare.
I am strongly in favor of more competent automation and more extensive automation. I also don't care a whit how many hours a pilot has. I care if they know what to do when something goes wrong.
In my very humble view the first and foremost problem is abnormal/emergency procedures training. The second, just as critical is crm. Almost all the accident reports I ever have reviewed have had a combination of both problems.
More simulator training, not less and more recurrency simulator training, not less, can vastly reduce the risks, regardless of hours.
Boeing has gone through hoops to reduce training requirements. Airlines do that too. No secret, simulator training is expensive and emergencies are rare.
I am strongly in favor of more competent automation and more extensive automation. I also don't care a whit how many hours a pilot has. I care if they know what to do when something goes wrong.
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: Belgium
Autonomous airliners? Check out the NTSB report on the fatal accident of the autonomous car that drove into a pedestrian and her bike (the list of "objects" and situations those cars can't handle is longer than you think). The lack of training on ethics and human factors is the running joke of the software industry for years (fortunately some take those courses at some point in their careers). Full autonomy means the designers have foreseen and built in every possible scenario into the algorithms. 'Not going to happen any time soon, IMHO. Or perhaps when accident reports will stop to describe operational surprises and unexpected combinations nobody ever thought of (good luck with that one)... Put AI on board then? Who's got the guts to certify such an airplane when the software engineers themselves acknowledge that at a certain point they don't know exactly how things work anymore?
If you can, grab a copy of "The ironies of automation" by Lisanne Bainbridge. It's a 4-page article from 1983 and we haven't made much progress since then.
"Pay-to-fly" schemes will unfortunately carry on for many years...
If you can, grab a copy of "The ironies of automation" by Lisanne Bainbridge. It's a 4-page article from 1983 and we haven't made much progress since then.
"Pay-to-fly" schemes will unfortunately carry on for many years...
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: Belgium
Right. Unfortunately, it's only when you set the parking brake that you know for sure that what you did was a reasonably correct thing to do. And when hindsight bias kicks in.
To your point, I'm concerned about professionals not being exposed to enough risky situations, and even freaking out at the mere thought of manually flying all the way to TOC or from TOD (...when the conditions are right of course). Ultra-safe may become "too safe" (can't believe I'm saying this!), and this is one of the ironies when the average skills erode by a lack of exposure to crappy situations and bad decisions (that hopefully are both recoverable).
To your point, I'm concerned about professionals not being exposed to enough risky situations, and even freaking out at the mere thought of manually flying all the way to TOC or from TOD (...when the conditions are right of course). Ultra-safe may become "too safe" (can't believe I'm saying this!), and this is one of the ironies when the average skills erode by a lack of exposure to crappy situations and bad decisions (that hopefully are both recoverable).
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 6,729
Likes: 104
From: The Winchester
http://johnrooksby.org/papers/ECCE20...er_ironies.pdf
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 665
Likes: 6
From: hang on let me check
Right. Unfortunately, it's only when you set the parking brake that you know for sure that what you did was a reasonably correct thing to do. And when hindsight bias kicks in.
To your point, I'm concerned about professionals not being exposed to enough risky situations, and even freaking out at the mere thought of manually flying all the way to TOC or from TOD (...when the conditions are right of course). Ultra-safe may become "too safe" (can't believe I'm saying this!), and this is one of the ironies when the average skills erode by a lack of exposure to crappy situations and bad decisions (that hopefully are both recoverable).
To your point, I'm concerned about professionals not being exposed to enough risky situations, and even freaking out at the mere thought of manually flying all the way to TOC or from TOD (...when the conditions are right of course). Ultra-safe may become "too safe" (can't believe I'm saying this!), and this is one of the ironies when the average skills erode by a lack of exposure to crappy situations and bad decisions (that hopefully are both recoverable).
Learning to fly means first of all being selected at a very early stage by a reputable organization (usually military, but also a big airline). And also being exposed to many different ways of flying, ideally military, and also gliders, single, multi engines. In different parts of the world possibly, in different weather conditions. Once you’re at an airline it’s too late, and most likely you’ll have to listen to young instructors who have less experience than the average first officer a couple of decades ago.
It is what it is.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 111
From: Somewhere over the rainbow
But even if you had done challenging flying before , if you don’t practise you loose your skills. Simple as that.
Flying accurately a raw data ILS is not possible if you don’t train it regularly in line. I see so many guys doing raw data In daily operations and it confirms exactly what I say. The ones who do it often are usually the best. The only way to master instruments flying by hand and to feel confortable doing it in any conditions is to practise, practise and practise. Of course some are naturally better in term of handling. The ex military guys have usually a good handling but they are no exception to that rule. In fact they are not the best I have seen so saying ideally military is a bit pushy IMHO . From what I have seen so far, usually the guys who flew ATR in rough conditions are at ease when it comes to fly A320 raw data. I never flew ATR btw. I wish I did tho.
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
From: animal farm
I did a sim on 777 in Turkey to an Italian and he was better than the AP . I was impressed by his raw data ILS..to a landing at Mina and with 25 kts of xwind.
That is the goal..bring better than few electrons with your billion neurons not letting this profession die on automation complacency. Just a matter of time before something will happen and bring up the issue. Too many virtual/fake pilots in the cockpit.
That is the goal..bring better than few electrons with your billion neurons not letting this profession die on automation complacency. Just a matter of time before something will happen and bring up the issue. Too many virtual/fake pilots in the cockpit.
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
From: UK
I don’t totally agree. Well if you keep the FD all the time and Auto Thrust I agree you don’t learn much.
But even if you had done challenging flying before , if you don’t practise you loose your skills. Simple as that.
Flying accurately a raw data ILS is not possible if you don’t train it regularly in line. I see so many guys doing raw data In daily operations and it confirms exactly what I say. The ones who do it often are usually the best. The only way to master instruments flying by hand and to feel confortable doing it in any conditions is to practise, practise and practise. Of course some are naturally better in term of handling. The ex military guys have usually a good handling but they are no exception to that rule. In fact they are not the best I have seen so saying ideally military is a bit pushy IMHO . From what I have seen so far, usually the guys who flew ATR in rough conditions are at ease when it comes to fly A320 raw data. I never flew ATR btw. I wish I did tho.
They manage the threat of skills degradation by encouraging their pilots to book ad hoc sim time for practice in a dedicated fixed base machine.
There is no truth in the rumour that the sim has a coin slot on the outside, which accepts euros, in order to make it work.
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: camelshitcity
If you let people genetically unable to fly.. fly cause someone profits from making them think they can fly... you got a saturation. Like being unable to play tennis but your teacher tells you ..nooo you are good you will mprove ...just to sell lessons balls and raquets. You want good player in the cockpit...not delusional idiots.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 111
From: Somewhere over the rainbow
Agree with you Sheikmyarse.
Let’s face it. Most of the fatal accidents in the last 15 years, the lack of hand flying skills was definitely a big factor.
But amazingly some airlines still forbid their pilots to hand fly in line and that’s totally legal. Unbelievable. Smh
Let’s face it. Most of the fatal accidents in the last 15 years, the lack of hand flying skills was definitely a big factor.
But amazingly some airlines still forbid their pilots to hand fly in line and that’s totally legal. Unbelievable. Smh
Only half a speed-brake
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,459
Likes: 136
From: Commuting not home
The reason every thread gets polluted with this resentment headache is people looking for scapegoats, and then legions rush to join sing along.
Inconvenient truths:
- on a path 0-2500 hrs medium jet, the self-sponsored (P2F) line-training packages cost just over a half of typical high-class CTC / CAE Oxford integrated courses. Pay and expenses included.
- money is necessary to get you a seat, but will not pass the exams for you. Could the ATO turn a blind eye, or avoid a specific exercise for the check? Possibly so, but after passing that you ain't seen even a shadow of a crew-shuttle bus (more below)
- the rich kids, as a group, do better. Any walk of life, and that also for objective reasons. Agonizing over it did not improve anyone's self ever.
----
Somebody upthread commented on having multiple horrendous experiences with fresh F/Os. While my personal account is nowhere near that heartbreaking at all, I need to respect that fellow pilot's opinion.
There was a simple 3-stage exercise to pass before concluding the training phase, to be admitted for the final SIM check on my first type rating. Organized and neat performance was the requirement.
a) ILS raw data (no AP / no FD / no ATHR / no MAP mode) down through CAT II minima
b) EFATO at V1 (handflown to landing)
c) PIC incap at VR.
only then you're ready for the check. And we had been trained hard for it.
If someone finds himself next to a colleague who is not sufficiently competent (unable to land back in marginal WX single-pilot, e.g.) the system must had failed them both:
Ground Zero: not reported for performance review by line captains
level Z-1: passed line-check
level Z-2: passed release from the "with safety pilot" phase
level Z-3: passed the OCC SIM check
level Z-4: passed the type rating Licence Proficiency Check.
There are deeper levels, but irrelevant. One can only clean the near side of the street. Funny and unsettling at the same time, those 5 above have something in common, organizationally. That is the elephant in the room nobody dares to mention. While at the same time the FAA to Boeing delegation fiasco still gets at least 5 fresh comments a day here.
---
I see these loose thoughts are irrelevant to the topic of the thread, apologies for joining the band.
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: camelshitcity
Right on the target, but a wrong one. How many of those were caused by P2F cadets? I do not dispute the rusty skills analysis.
The reason every thread gets polluted with this resentment headache is people looking for scapegoats, and then legions rush to join sing along.
Inconvenient truths:
- on a path 0-2500 hrs medium jet, the self-sponsored (P2F) line-training packages cost just over a half of typical high-class CTC / CAE Oxford integrated courses. Pay and expenses included.
- money is necessary to get you a seat, but will not pass the exams for you. Could the ATO turn a blind eye, or avoid a specific exercise for the check? Possibly so, but after passing that you ain't seen even a shadow of a crew-shuttle bus (more below)
- the rich kids, as a group, do better. Any walk of life, and that also for objective reasons. Agonizing over it did not improve anyone's self ever.
----
Somebody upthread commented on having multiple horrendous experiences with fresh F/Os. While my personal account is nowhere near that heartbreaking at all, I need to respect that fellow pilot's opinion.
There was a simple 3-stage exercise to pass before concluding the training phase, to be admitted for the final SIM check on my first type rating. Organized and neat performance was the requirement.
a) ILS raw data (no AP / no FD / no ATHR / no MAP mode) down through CAT II minima
b) EFATO at V1 (handflown to landing)
c) PIC incap at VR.
only then you're ready for the check. And we had been trained hard for it.
If someone finds himself next to a colleague who is not sufficiently competent (unable to land back in marginal WX single-pilot, e.g.) the system must had failed them both:
Ground Zero: not reported for performance review by line captains
level Z-1: passed line-check
level Z-2: passed release from the "with safety pilot" phase
level Z-3: passed the OCC SIM check
level Z-4: passed the type rating Licence Proficiency Check.
There are deeper levels, but irrelevant. One can only clean the near side of the street. Funny and unsettling at the same time, those 5 above have something in common, organizationally. That is the elephant in the room nobody dares to mention. While at the same time the FAA to Boeing delegation fiasco still gets at least 5 fresh comments a day here.
---
I see these loose thoughts are irrelevant to the topic of the thread, apologies for joining the band.
The reason every thread gets polluted with this resentment headache is people looking for scapegoats, and then legions rush to join sing along.
Inconvenient truths:
- on a path 0-2500 hrs medium jet, the self-sponsored (P2F) line-training packages cost just over a half of typical high-class CTC / CAE Oxford integrated courses. Pay and expenses included.
- money is necessary to get you a seat, but will not pass the exams for you. Could the ATO turn a blind eye, or avoid a specific exercise for the check? Possibly so, but after passing that you ain't seen even a shadow of a crew-shuttle bus (more below)
- the rich kids, as a group, do better. Any walk of life, and that also for objective reasons. Agonizing over it did not improve anyone's self ever.
----
Somebody upthread commented on having multiple horrendous experiences with fresh F/Os. While my personal account is nowhere near that heartbreaking at all, I need to respect that fellow pilot's opinion.
There was a simple 3-stage exercise to pass before concluding the training phase, to be admitted for the final SIM check on my first type rating. Organized and neat performance was the requirement.
a) ILS raw data (no AP / no FD / no ATHR / no MAP mode) down through CAT II minima
b) EFATO at V1 (handflown to landing)
c) PIC incap at VR.
only then you're ready for the check. And we had been trained hard for it.
If someone finds himself next to a colleague who is not sufficiently competent (unable to land back in marginal WX single-pilot, e.g.) the system must had failed them both:
Ground Zero: not reported for performance review by line captains
level Z-1: passed line-check
level Z-2: passed release from the "with safety pilot" phase
level Z-3: passed the OCC SIM check
level Z-4: passed the type rating Licence Proficiency Check.
There are deeper levels, but irrelevant. One can only clean the near side of the street. Funny and unsettling at the same time, those 5 above have something in common, organizationally. That is the elephant in the room nobody dares to mention. While at the same time the FAA to Boeing delegation fiasco still gets at least 5 fresh comments a day here.
---
I see these loose thoughts are irrelevant to the topic of the thread, apologies for joining the band.