Euro market pilot saturation

[cessnaxpilot]

Originally Posted by calypso

While I agree that experience is not the only metric

Every "good" pilot gets better with experience
Every "Bad" pilot gets a little less bad with experience


On top of that It is always better to scare yourself ****less on your own in a little Cessna and swear to never do that again than to do the same as a captain in a 737.

There are capts in Europe that have never diverted, never done a GA, never have had to use the QRH in flight. They are flying with guys that are trailing twelve miles behind the tail. The only reason nothing happens is because these are extremely reliable machines

very true.

someone keeps mentioning “1500 hours in the pattern” and I don’t really know anyone who actually just does 1500 hours in the pattern. That being said, I agree that if someone spends 1500 hours teaching flying, that’s not especially valuable experience. I do find that teaching things like L/D, laminar flow, shifting CP, etc makes one think about those concepts and brings one to a better understanding. Ask most pilots to explain Mach tuck and how the shock wave changes the CP and I’ll bet you get a weak explanation.

to the OP asking about the market, do I understand correctly that Different pilots at the same carrier operate on different contracts? It seems like the airlines can easily use this to divide the pilot group.

the US has benefited from a strong economy for the airlines, a shortage of qualified pilots, and pilot groups that are cohesive. It’s like a marriage. Once someone gets hired at an airline, they tend to think that’s their life and they work to make it better. I may be wrong, (I’m only saying this from reading on here), but it seems like a lot of people with an airline job in Europe keep shopping for a different job. It’s definitely a different market.

As a casual outside observer, it seems the BA strike didn’t achieve much. I wish it had. We are all better served by a strong market for pilots everywhere.

[UAV689]

This is an extremely interesting debate.

Firstly, supply and demand dictates wages in Europe in the main, with some union nudging. The 1500hr rule was knee jerk in USA, causing the shortage which drove up wages.

Does does 1500hrs make someone a better pilot? Maybe.

Sometimes a candidate requires experience to grow themselves, mature their character, it’s not all just hand eye coordination, a lot of soft skills to learn. I see this a lot with new cadet firsts officers, lacking in people and communication skills, then you see a mature second career modular cadet pilot that has all these attributes from their previous career/life experience. Perhaps the 1500hrs flying will involve a few hundred banner towing being self sufficient, a few hundred instructional, giving briefings, learning how to honestly debrief students, a few hundred flying single pilot freight work, IFR at night etc etc, producing a well rounded candidate,

Also a huge portion of this is down to selection and training as well. For example the military, looks in-depth at personality traits and leadership potential, then has a highly regimented officer training followed by flight training which will see people on the front line in something very fast and pointy after about 400 (not 100% sure) or so hours.

The selection process in flight training schools, is basically can you pay for it (they pretend to do tests, I doubt anyone fails..) the training is then often taught by a few categories of instructors, new CPLs doing their first job passing through n bad habits they were taught a few months before, or instructors that have never passed an airline selection for various reasons and become career instructors (even if they are not suitable to teach...) or retired Air Force/airliner types often fairly ancient and with dated attitudes to teaching, or the rarest kind, someone that loves teaching and has or is currently an operational pilot for the love of it.

The training syllabus is then also ancient, teaching things as pointless as timed turns (when was the last time this was done in anger? WW2?) It needs dragging into the modern days, being relevant to the skills and techniques relevant to the class/type of operation the student will go into.

Then at some airlines the last selection process is just some maths tests, a “tell me a time when”type interview and go in the sim for a v1 cut and raw data ILS.

This is still leaves untested much of the soft traits that you can rarely see until it is too late on the line, sometimes during a non normal event.

The entire process is not fit, designed by ancient regulators out of touch with reality after being lobbied by airlines desperate for crews that want to lower standards and speed up the process.

[KayPam]

Originally Posted by 4runner

first class? 5 star? What is their salary? More than half of all aircraft and airline pilots are American. We set the bar. If u get paid less, you’re lowering it.

For example, the Air France cadet programme put people with less than 300 hours in the right seat of a medium jet.
However, 70% of them are educated up to master's degree and 70% of these master's degrees are specialized in aerospace engineering.
Lufthansa also does it. Easyjet also does it. British Airways also does it...
They get paid a decent salary. I can't speak for every airline but at ours, cadets will get 4000-4500 whereas experienced pilots with 1500 hours on heavy aircraft would get 15% more, that is 4600-5200. Actually, out of the 130-260k (depending on if you count direct or direct + indirect costs) that they cost to the airline, they will just pay back about 40k, in 5 years.

Success rates for the assessments are about 2-3%.
Even though there are requirements in the selection process specifically designed at reducing the number of "dreamers" who will apply randomly, there are still thousands of candidates.

[UAV689]

Originally Posted by KayPam

For example, the Air France cadet programme put people with less than 300 hours in the right seat of a medium jet.
However, 70% of them are educated up to master's degree and 70% of these master's degrees are specialized in aerospace engineering.
Lufthansa also does it. Easyjet also does it. British Airways also does it...
They get paid a decent salary. I can't speak for every airline but at ours, cadets will get 4000-4500 whereas experienced pilots with 1500 hours on heavy aircraft would get 15% more, that is 4600-5200. Actually, out of the 130-260k (depending on if you count direct or direct + indirect costs) that they cost to the airline, they will just pay back about 40k, in 5 years.

Success rates for the assessments are about 2-3%.
Even though there are requirements in the selection process specifically designed at reducing the number of "dreamers" who will apply randomly, there are still thousands of candidates.

I have been lucky to teach recently some AF cadets their basic phase single engine, and they have been some of the best students I have had the pleasure of teaching.

Which to me shows the importance of pilot selection at an early stage is vital to overall safety. (that being said, they still had the accident that dark night over the pacific)

Unfortunately across the world it is now a case of if you can pay for pilot training, you will be a pilot for someone, somewhere. I have seen all to often too many pilots that do it for the so called "prestige" off the back of the bank of mum and dad. What is equally as disappointing, is that many of this crop also fall out of love of flying early on, when the reality hits home of just how brutal this job can be on one's personal life, often they never realised just how unsuitable they were for the career.

Can you imagine if NATS in the UK took this approach towards ATC selection? I would say widely regarded as the best ATC in the world, partly due to its early stage selection and training process.

[4runner]

The US had the Great Recession and the pilot market is just now recovering. I was furloughed twice before I was 30 and ended up overseas until 2017. I was greatful for the job. We may have taken a few concessionary contracts during this time, but by and large, we work cohesively as a nation and a group of professionals to maintain the viability of our profession and the safety. ALPA in particular has been instrumental in this strategy. As for not requiring a degree and all these qualifications such as 1500 hours, you may be correct that they are not REQUIRED. They are and have been, a good prerequisite to maintain a solid, and reliable group ov aviators. Someone advertising that they can accomplish a task or trade with less education, experience and qualifications for less money isn’t conducive to a career. We call these people scabs if they cross an organized labor action.

[tottigol]

The 1500 hours and an ATP AMEL certificate requirement is written in blood.
The US industry was in the same state as today's European Air Transport market, overextended junior pilots with barely 500 hours flying 8 segments a day getting paid 25.000 to 30.000$ a year was the norm in regional or subsidiary airlines.
A couple of deadly crashes and the involvement o politicians changed that.
Today, getting a job under part 121, requires the pilot to have an ATP AMEL, but before having that, the requirement is to take an ATP/CTP preparatory course with 30 hours of GS in subjects like CRM, high altitude phsiology and others, plus 12 hours in a simulator of an over 40.00lbs type.
Yet they are running out of pilots at the bottom.
Shall Europe catch up? Where is the PIC formation mentality?

[rudestuff]

Europe has long required an MCC before a first multi crew type rating, slightly more to it than the ATP-CTP. They also require 500 hours of multi crew experience before getting an ATP. In the US you can get an ATP (that's right, the qualification needed to *command* a multi crew aircraft) in a single pilot piston aircraft with zero multi crew experience. I do hope Europe catches up.

[Rarife]

I think we are turning the discussion to the wrong direction. Honestly, there are already schools which offer pay X for ATPL(A) (CPL,MEP/IR) or pay twice more and we get you a job. With 1500 hours it will just turn into pay 5 times more and we get you job. Job at local low cost for €1000 after you did 1300 hours for free somewhere and somehow. This will not help.

Anyway some people here say that cadets are fine, some people say that they are horrible. Either someone is wrong here or the quality of cadets varies way too much.

This looks like "how to prevent people from flying" and I believe it should be more "how to teach people how to fly and what we really want".

I was happy with my school and ground studies (I do not say it was good because you will burn me at the stake) but when I compare it to other kind of studies I can not believe how little is enough or that parts I though are mandatory are simply non-existent in other schools.

[KayPam]

Originally Posted by UAV689

I have been lucky to teach recently some AF cadets their basic phase single engine, and they have been some of the best students I have had the pleasure of teaching.

Which to me shows the importance of pilot selection at an early stage is vital to overall safety. (that being said, they still had the accident that dark night over the pacific)

I'm sending you some details via PM, but basically 447 had nothing to do with cadet training (pilots had 3000 and 6500 hours so way above the 1500 hours rule).
It may have had a bit more to do with documentation and training at the time. Everything was rebuilt from the ground up. Entire departments were thanked. In the "made redundant" way.

[Consol]

Originally Posted by KayPam

I'm sending you some details via PM, but basically 447 had nothing to do with cadet training (pilots had 3000 and 6500 hours so way above the 1500 hours rule).
It may have had a bit more to do with documentation and training at the time. Everything was rebuilt from the ground up. Entire departments were thanked. In the "made redundant" way.

KayPam, if you are not breaching confidentiality can you elaborate? 447 was the game changer and we all need to know as much as possible about how it happened and how we can prevent it ever happening again both by training and by culture change.

[Grav]

Originally Posted by KayPam

I'm sending you some details via PM, but basically 447 had nothing to do with cadet training (pilots had 3000 and 6500 hours so way above the 1500 hours rule).
It may have had a bit more to do with documentation and training at the time. Everything was rebuilt from the ground up. Entire departments were thanked. In the "made redundant" way.

I would like to know more, too. I think many others could benefit from the information you can share.

[4runner]

Originally Posted by rudestuff

Europe has long required an MCC before a first multi crew type rating, slightly more to it than the ATP-CTP. They also require 500 hours of multi crew experience before getting an ATP. In the US you can get an ATP (that's right, the qualification needed to *command* a multi crew aircraft) in a single pilot piston aircraft with zero multi crew experience. I do hope Europe catches up.

in Europe, you can too. It’s called a “frozen” atpl. In the US, our MCC is part of the sim training, partnering, check ride and line training. Even if you were a single engine fighter jock, you’ll still have some leadership skills from the military and can adapt. We have some single pilot, metroliner cargo pilots coming in line. That flew in Alaska. Those guys are abit odd...

[Oriana]

The equipment we fly is so good - it masks alot of latent skills issues.

All things being equal - you can't beat experience.

And usually, it's those without it - that don't understand that.

[FullWings]

Originally Posted by tiddles52

Lets face it, planes are also a LOT easier to fly these days. Compare a 1960s Trident or DC9 to todays Airbus with GPS, Alpha-Floor, ILS, HUD, EFIS,ACARS,GPWS, weather radar,laptops etc etc.

Yes, but they are a LOT harder to operate when those systems start badly misbehaving. Older aircraft were hand-flown much more and automatics disconnected on the first sign of trouble. Today, it’s the other way round.

To be completely on top of your game in a modern airliner, you need serious technical knowledge (sometimes quite esoteric), good “soft” skills and an ability to revert to stick’n'rudder and basic navigation should you need it. That is a difficult combination to acquire and to keep current. How many hours in Direct Law on standby instruments does the average A3XX pilot have? Same with PFCs disconnected in a 777/787? You can be a competent operator without that experience but the outer reaches of the envelope will provide challenges.

The equipment we fly is so good - it masks alot of latent skills issues.

All things being equal - you can't beat experience.

And usually, it's those without it - that don't understand that.

Agreed. But everyone starts with no experience and it is more difficult now under many airlines' SOPs to get the exposure to develop those skills in the first place. The answer is often more training but that costs money with no directly attributable benefit in that financial quarter, so it doesn’t happen that often.

I’m a fan of the “self improver” route, as well as the intensive airline-focussed course; strength in diversity. The one notable difference I find with those who’ve worked their way up through GA, light commercial aviation, etc. is that pretty much all of them enjoy flying and appear happier in the job than some of their colleagues...

[Rottweiler22]

Sadly, I feel there’s a lot of tarring with the same brush going on here.

I was a product of the integrated system, and within a couple of weeks of finishing training was on a jet type rating for a European airline. Many will say “Ah, well you’ve just bought your job”, and think what you like. Far be it from me to make a modular versus integrated thread, but some points need to be made.

What I can say is that there are exceptional cadets from integrated schemes, there are diabolical ones. Same as there are exceptional products of the modular route, as there are terrible ones.

I know 1000 hour ex- integrated cadets who trainers say have better flying skill, situational awareness, decision making and CRM than most captains do. I also know 1000 hour ex cadets who can’t land the aircraft in still air. And I completely agree, there are plenty of people with wealthy families who want a “glamourous” job, and to be seen strutting through Manchester airport with their uniform and Samsonite luggage.

I’ve flown with captains who preach about the thousands of hours they spent “paying their dues” towing banners or instructing, before they eventually got their first airline job. The most vocal ones are shocking, but plenty are very good. The same with FOs. I really can’t say who is better or worse, as every aspect has good and bad.

I can’t help but think that quality control should be done through airline selection, initial training, and checks. And I do think that plenty of airlines do this quite well. If a 200 hour cadets has a better sim and assessment performance than a 2000 hour banner tower, then they should get the job. Regardless of the “dues they’ve paid”. I honestly don’t see a single valid point of establishing a 1500 hour rule in Europe. Especially when in my airline the most vocal advocates of this are the ones who know they don’t have the ability to move to a better airline, and know they’ll be outperformed by cadets.

[FlightDetent]

Rottweiler22 Now, that's a post I enjoyed reading.

[misd-agin]

The issues been studied in the U.S. Guys with flight training instruction, which is the overwhelming majority of new hires at the regionals, do better in initial training than guys doing jobs with little supervision like banner towing, glider towing, and pipe line flying. Every person knows of exceptions.

Does anyone think you're a worse pilot if you've flown more? Age becomes a factor at some point, I'd say around 50-60, but most people gain some knowledge and experience with longevity. But a factor in long haul flying is fewer flights, That can be an issue vs the n/b pilots doing more legs on one trip than some w/b pilots do all year.

You don't need a college degree to get an airline job in the U.S. It was a very low probability path in the past but the current system has plenty of opportunity, but still a minority opportunity path, for non college degreed candidates.

Europe doesn't have the GA/light aircraft training and flying system the U.S. has. I'd be surprised to see it change to a U.S. style training system.

[misd-agin]

Listening to a U.S. golfer talk on a podcast yesterday. He has a light airplane. He was asked about his scariest event. At the time he had about 300 hrs TT. He mentions that he now has about 1,000 hrs and wouldn't do what happened at 300 hrs occur now that he has 1,000 hrs. That can't be taught in a simulator. There is value in experience, especially when you're starting out. In those 700 hrs he learned more about being a pilot than a airline pilot would going from 20,000 hrs to 25,000 hrs if they didn't switch aircraft.

[Banana Joe]

Are you really comparing a golfer flying for hobby to a professional pilot that goes through checking every 6 months just to try to make your point? Really?

[calypso]

I know 1000 hour ex- integrated cadets who trainers say have better flying skill, situational awareness, decision making and CRM than most captains do.

I have also seen enough command assessments to know that the brilliant cadet that seemingly can do no wrong will often fall to pieces when put in the hot seat without a captains support. They know everything they need to do and yet they are unable to prioritise and organise themselves to get it done in an orderly, safe and expeditious fashion.

If nothing else at the very least every six months you are in the sim learning new failures, watching new guys deal with problems, leaking your wounds if you get it wrong... therefore every six months you have a few more hours and you are a little better.

Pilots are for the most part made not born. They are made by instruction, study, practice, imitation and exposure. Some people will never make good pilots regardless of hours but that does not in any way mean that most pilots will not improve with experience. If you think that you are so good already that experience cannot teach you anything you are heading for a hard lesson.