I have to agree with hooby. I am not an airline pilot, to some extent by choice, and I deplore the the current lack of status of professional pilots. (Certainly compared to TV presenters, X-factor contestants, Feng Shui consultants, etc). But you have to accept that a career choice that was considered "sexy" 25 years ago may not be any longer. I can give several examples.
It is not helped by members of the "profession" who spend an inordinate amount of time complaining about seniority and pension rights.

Dangerous assumptions
 

VONKLUFFEN has been rightly praised for his United Airlines "Streetwise" / Airmanship posting. Sadly the conclusions (which appear to have been written by the poster) leave MUCH to be desired!

To suggest that manual flying skills ("stick and rudder") are somehow made irrelevant by this airline questionnaire is absurd. Sadly, basic flying skills have been forgotten in an environment of automation. Understanding how an aeropane handles and why the AP makes the changes to pitch , roll and power cannot be learned purely from scanning during autoflight. When properly briefed, disconnecting the AP to practice those rusty manual skills occasionally is intrinsically a good way to develop a pilot's airmanship.

Far more accidents/incidents have resulted from WRONG pilot inputs than the VONKLUFFEN post acknowledges. Here are a few more recent ones:

Colgan Q400: 50 RIP
Colgan Air Flight 3407 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incorrect stall recovery (Captain fought stick shaker) after icing led to spin on approach.

TFly 737: (thankfully no loss)
http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/B..._UK,_2007_(LOC)
Autothrottle disconnect un-noticed speed bleed back and applying full power against full aft trim resulted in stall and 44 deg nose up attitude.

American Airlines A300-600 lost its tailfin: 265 RIP
American Airlines Flight 587 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After wake turbulence upset, poor use of rudder by FO resulted in fin separation and subsequent loss of directional stability.

A320 Hard landing: (a/c damaged, thankfully no casualties):
Uncorrected poor technique led trainee to land A320 hard
""The aircraft demands a relatively high level of 'assured' skill from the trainee their ability to land the aircraft correctly, consistently, should not be in doubt before base training commences and certainly not in doubt during line training where passengers are carried," says the AAIB's inquiry."


It is precisely the attitude that in modern flying machines the computers can do all the work and a pilot is just there to monitor them that is causing worldwide concern over pilot training and experience. Ok so you are monitoring when things go ****up and the aeroplane hands you full manual control - what does the pilot do? We may never know what happened on the AF447 A330 last June, but we know the pilots faced conflicting airspeed indications. Attitude and power settings are in the QRH but what if there is no time to read it?

BEA Confirms Conflicting Airspeed Indications from Air France A330: AINonline

Practicing standard engine failures in the SIM to meet FAA/CAA basic standards using Airline SOPs is all well and good but does not prepare for the unexpected such as the Hudson A320 birdstrike.

More posts here on pprune:

USA looking at min 1500h ruling for Airline pilots:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...-airplane.html

Airbus concerned over pilot handling skills:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/3...ys-airbus.html

Qualification as an 'airline pilot' by virtue of an ATPL is not a 'profession' in the accepted sense but a technical occupation.

The 'professions' require examination (first degree) and training to be eligible for membership. Common examples include solicitors (the Law Society), accountants (Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales) and surveyors (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors).

There is no professional body or training for airline pilots, other than a technical qualification gained by passing the relevant ATPL exams.

If you check the magistrates website and obtain a list of occupations you will see that the above 'professions' are listed whereas airline pilots and air traffic controllers are classed as technical occupations.

Whilst the training and ability or pilots is without doubt comparable with other so-called professions, pilots are not classed as such.

Without the representation of a professional body pilots lack the 'teeth' to fight as the other professions do to acquire the status now enjoyed by the main professional bodies.

Unfortunately some pilots see BALPA as their representative body, but with all due respect it is not the same thing.

Whilst I winge about the service I receive from my professional body (fees £500 plus per annum) it does provide the means by which I earn a living (status and prestige, as well as a requirement for most employment). I would have been lost without the facility provided by professional membership throughout my career.

This lack of representation and unity (not in a trade union sense) is a big drawback and can be argued to be at the root of the maladies suffered by the airline 'profession' at the moment.

So until pilots have a professional body to represent them (Institute of Chartered Pilots seems a good title!!!) and the industry remains fragmented it will be difficult to achieve the level of respect from those in management who are professionals by qualifications - 'bean counters' will often be Chartered Accountants for example.

Maybe this is the way forward? Institutes can be formed and run without Chartered status. This approach would follow that of the other professions and might enable flight crew to gain professional status, but more importantly collective representation.

KR

FOK

New Pilot Organization For ALL??
 

Alright.

I kinda just wanted to see how people in general are thinking and by that i am posting this in hope of a Reply.

I have been involved in Aviation for the past soon 10 years and worked as a Pilot around the Globe. I have been one of the both Fortunate but also Unfortunate and i know everyone have their own opinions and ideas about our industry, but i at this point are about to have had enough.

What i am talking about is how we as pilot now are set as a level where we might even be flipping burgers at Mc.D. Pilots are over and over being downgraded, stepped on and looked at in a sense that were pretty much nothing.

It is everywhere all around the world, YES some are fortunate and i have been there myself worked for a stable company who takes care of their people, but there is few and far between these, and many pilots often the new once are being used like slave labour... Is it our own fault somewhat yes, many say we should have looked ahead and expected the worst, that life is tough and too bad... Yes it is our own fault that we fall inlove with a profession which is rotten, a profession that most people spend over 50.000Pounds to educate themselves in. A profession where even the local CAA agencies tend to work against you then with you. A profession where you are bound to work for years to pay back your loans to the bank.
A profession where major airlines make you pay for training, make you pay to work and treat you like your nothing.

Through years i been listening to Pilots, friends colleagues talking about how aviation have become not just a nightmare but something that have made them regret ever stepping into. How they have to fight not just with their companies but the industry in general. Just looking at every situation that happens around the world, i.e like airport security problems. Governments scream up and want to make changes, which in turn makes the pilots life even harder, but of EVERYONE do they ever ask the pilots for advice, do they ever talk to the people who are actually incharge when the door is closed. They dont and they never do.

Airlines like Easy Jet who try to hire pilots who have gone through a school like Oxford and payed an outrages amount over 50.000 pounds for their license, wants to bring in new young lowtime guys and make them pay an extra 34.000 pounds to get a typerating that cost them less then 10.000pounds. Killing the industry, people can blame they young pilots but someone should stand up against companies like Easy jet, and other big or small companies who are taking advantage...
People will say, well supply and demand, sure but remember one day you will be the person who sits in the right or left seat after paying ur way inside and you will now get kicked out the same way u came in....

What i with all my blaber are trying to see is if there are people who here like me have been saying to themselves, ENOUGH!!!!
People who would be interested in setting up an organization that will look at all areas in aviation, who will stand up for the little guy when needed, who will speak up when ignored by authorities or companies.
An organization that will go against the flow and try to start to fix some of the major problems we have, both with the airlines, private companies and governments, across borders.. Who will speak up when changes are being made that will affect our work and living in a more negative way. Who will speak up when the CAA or other authorities are making changes or regulations that are completely waist of breath.

I know there are several organizations out there but truth be told which ever way you look at it none of them have done a very good job, hence the situation were in now.

Anyways was just wondering if others was thinking the same or thinking it could be an idea?

Take care

Self Sponsored Command
 

I totally agree with you, mate

People will become increasingly aware of the deep we are in the !!!!! when they see the first SELF SPONSORED COMMAND courses.

VONKLUFFEN's post is great, but I would like to make a comment.

It says several times than studiying and reviewing is necessary (even if many pilot's themselves don't "admit" it, as if it was a weakness)

So, How on Earth will a guy be a good pilot who studies and reviews if he has never studied before becoming a pilot?

The system should make sure that a wannabee has good studiying skills before letting him begin with the training. And the training itself should include basic maths and physics for those who don't know much about them.

Finally I would like to say that, in the 21st century, the whole licencing issue should be totally changed. I can make a syllabus for a 4 year university degree that would be as hard to finish as any other degree that would make airline pilots be the best they could. Why should those unable to pass it have the right to become a airline pilot instead of those who are able?

There will be a day we ALL say ENOUGH. But we need to dive even deeper in the !!!!!.

You will see

This job is not easier than it used to be. It is way more difficult !!! The aray of skills required is a lot wider and deeper. Dure guys used to have to keep tracks from VOR to VOR and they had to follow glide paths manually. But trafic was so much lighter. Legal issues were not as critical as they are today. CRM wasn't even a concept. Aircraft systems were so much simpler and "down to earth" oriented. Things did not go that fast. Airspaces were simple. The amound of constraints did not compare to today's. Commercial aspects of the job had nothing to do with the necessity of today's requirements in terms of commercial presence (pax remember captains' announcements and general behavior, not marketing peoples' actions). Passengers, monthly flights were fewer.

Ground staff who think this job is easier simply show the depth of their ignorance. They simply have no clue as to how demanding this job is in 2010.

Let's be proud !

Lets face it.....the ONLY real problem - that kicks all the mess off - are money-hungry FLIGHT SCHOOLS.

I have visited such an establishment ONCE on their open day, just because I was curious (trained modular myself), and you wouldn't believe all the shi* that's spouted over the group of 18-21 year olds!!! :mad:

Retired Airline Pilot at the desk with a huge Boeing 777 model on it, everybody is "oooh aaaah". First question from the audience ( I kid you not! ):

"so if i train with you i get to fly a jet after flight school? not one of those small propeller planes?"

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:


People PAY type ratings because flying a turboprop, let a lone a small multi engine G/A aircraft would make them feel ashamed :*

That was all put in their head by the flight schools - start there and get the FAA model back. 1000 hrs min for a jet!!! ...that would give you only dedicated folks who are willing to work their way up, not pay their way in!

Innflight

The flight schools are very very close to the root of the problem, indeed.

I' m saying it out loud:
 

I AM A TURBOPROP PILOT AND I AM PROUD!

Oh, I spent some time on the shiny jet. If anything it was easier to handle and much more comfortable than any of the t-props I've flown.

I don't care about glamour, I'll take obscurity anytime. Just give me decent salary, decent and stable roster, maintain your aeroplanes properly, recognize when I go above the line of duty and at least say "thank you" afterwards, support me when times get hairy and never, ever put me in the situation where I have to decide between losing my job for not breaking the law or risking the loss of my licence If I get caught.

"Retired Airline Pilot at the desk with a huge Boeing 777 model on it, everybody is "oooh aaaah". First question from the audience ( I kid you not! ):

"so if i train with you i get to fly a jet after flight school? not one of those small propeller planes?""

Very true!

Alas it has to do with the X factor/consumer culture we now face in the "developed" world. It teaches image is more important than substance.

Look at the cinema. Almost gone are the the days of the good story line in films now it's more about how many millions are made on opening night and special effects.

Gone too are the heros with character, now it's about celebrity culture. The young are taught that the only way to have meaning is to be famous and make a lot of money preferably with the least amount of work. Hence fame and fortune are sold as the answer to their wants. And the bigger Flight Schools sell an image (like a mirage in todays economic climate).

The way forward is to make entry into the schools more difficult through assessments (will weed-out these "i only wanna fly the shiny jet thanks to daddies cash, I will only sdudy the question bank" type of youngsters), increase the proficiency level in flying (stick and rudder), go more in-depth into the basics of flying, eg. meteorology, Aerodynamics,... put an official degree at the end that combined with an unfrozen ATPL and type-rating is equivalent to a Masters degree (this will assure better job prospects in difficult times or after losing your medical) and... forbid airlines to do the "pay-to-fly" scam.
This is a regulatory issue and it is high time that we, as a community of aviators take action!
It is also our responsibility of experienced people to protect our younger collegues who are just starting out and who have the right attitude.
Up to now, I have never seen a more lame and divided, useless professional community then us, pilots! REFUSE to fly with pay-to-fly cadets! REFUSE ANY MORE CRAP from management that degrades our profession!
Please start to put pressure on your authorities and government, please (B)ALPA, IALPA, BeCA, SEPLA, FIA etc... Put your fingers out of your behinds and do your job!

I cannot remember where I read this but it was not marketing hype, The JAA ATPL Theory course is equivalent to a 2 year degree course and there are institutions which recognise this.

Also the argument about pilots don't fly anymore, they are only there to monitor, it's all automated yada yada yada...We are 21st century humans after all, automation is expected and exists in many other industries. I can think of hundreds of job titiles where one's job is simply to monitor; and react when needed. Those people however do not have responsibility for other peoples lives.

INNflight said...

YES, YES AND YES.

This approach is a common theme in many countries worldwide - USA and Canada being notable. Nothing can replace the valuable learning experiences that are (IMHO) fundamental to working your way up to high powered, high speed machinery. And I am not talking about how to program an FMS or such like - nope I am talking about the raw DECISION MAKING SKILLS that only come from starting small and working towards large, and all the experience that comes with it.

Over the pond you start instructing, then perhaps Air Taxi / MEP then regional etc etc. If there weren't so many guys willing to pay an SSTR immediately after flight school, supply would be better aligned with demand and the airlines would have to re-think their hiring strategies. In the same vein, if SSTR was out of favour due to a 1000hr min for jets, the flood of wannabes would be restricted to guys who were truly prepared to start from the bottom and work up. That would also make the schools re-think their (morally questionable) strategies for training.

I quite like the approach airline such as Royal Brunei take; cadets after training are sent on secondment to a regional turboprop company to build up experience in an airline environment and then after a couple of years transfer back to the company and onto their "shiney" jets.
The uproar which is happening at the moment, if you remove the paying for ratings and line training argument, is that effectively guys are skipping levels of the career ladder to get straight onto a jet, which is understandable, we all at some point considered the nice idea of flying short/longhaul shiney jets, but because they are doing that companies are paying them entry level pay, because they are entry level pilots, eroding terms and conditions of what was an upper level rung of the career ladder.
Sticking it out in smaller less paid jobs with lower terms and conditions is perfectly acceptable for many, because there was a great working atmosphere with excellent fun flying, hands on flying, and after a couple of years, you knew there would be an opportunity to move on to a better paid job.
The first rungs of the ladder will always be there its just they have moved further away from the ground. Earn 20,000 flying a turboprop enjoying yourself knowing youll get a double of triple pay rise in a few years, or jump straight onto a jet earn 20,000 miss out on valuable experience and MISS OUT ON FLYING THE PLANE NOT OPERATING IT and then by taking the jet route remove the opportunity to earn more money. What these guys dont realise is that there is nothing wrong with flying light twins or turboprops in fact its when your actually learning to be a pilot, are a pilot and not an operator. Like to see some of these new low experience guys fly these shiny jets with a u/s autopilot for four sectors with four NPAs. Those who have previously taken the traditional route, if they were to encounter a day such as that wouldnt find it unsettling, because they can go back to their previous experience.
If an airline must preselect then preselect from regional companies and arrange to back fill the regional companies with eager to learn cadets. Surely Oxford with all its contacts could set up a scheme between themselves and several "stepping stone" training airlines and easyjet.

FLYING A TURBOPROP IS FUN, isnt that why we all wanted to be a pilots, to FLY?

Tell the EU and EASA
 

As my great grandfather used to say in his 90s, "The day you stop learning is the day you are getting old"

Agree with INNflight on the idea of a 1000h rule for JAR25 jets and PaulW's view on apprentice type scheme.

However, it is not enough to post on pprune. It is time to write to the rule makers and with the advent of EASA replacing JAR we can have a say in that. Vice President Tajani is responsible for EU Transport and is aware of EU pilot training.

Write your concerns to:

Diego Canga Fano
Deputy Head of Cabinet to VP Tajani
European Commission
200, rue de la Loi
BERL 12/384
B-1049 Brussels (Belgium)
Tel. (+32) (0)2.29-21340
Fax (+32) (0)2.29-21.349

I have defintely noticed that over the last few years it has become a downword trend with various pilots ive worked with comparing their aviation career in a "SIZE" related thing. The moneys certainly reduced with increased work and the jobmarket competition has in some cases come down to "stabbing" in the back or spreading rumours.
Ive got many years left if I want it. Im not sure if I do.

Its a great vocation not JUST a job.

Ciao

It is a good idea to increase the required experience level of airline pilots, but in Europe the 1500 hour rule is not realistic.
So my suggestion to EASA is to make a 1000 hour rule, of which 500 hours can be on gliders or touring motor gliders for pilots working in commercial personnel transport.
This will provide the industry with more experienced pilots with good handling skills and will also put a stop to the Oxford/CTC scams.

The more people that bombard EASA with setting a min. concerning pilot hours for hiring, the quicker they may get off their ass and look into this subject. The sad fact is that nobody will make a rule until there is a crash here similar to the one in Buffalo, NY. But...if there is a chance then we should start writing! New min. hour requirement for new hires = better terms and conditions for all of us! This is the only way to stop the CtC and Oxford madness.

Here is a Easa email I found. Probably nobody reads it, but worth a shot.

Related to rulemaking: http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/g/img/rule.gif
Please also refer to our http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/img/arrowl.jpg Rulemaking Frequently Asked Questions page.

Cpt. Sunshine
 

Good letter and it scans well.
I'd also include something about the incredibly poor salary for the cadet while on the pay to fly contract so not being able to sustain themselves properly and potential safety issues surrounding stressed, fatigued and disenchanted crew.
I think that it would be the safetly issues that may make them take notice. Take a look at the other thread about the Guardian newspaper article!

Capt. Sunshine: You are a skilled person! Hell...you should become a lawyer!

Well done Cpt Sunshine!
 

You can email your concerns c/o


Anna Wielki-Sergio
Assistant to Diego Canga Fano
Deputy Head of Cabinet to VP Tajani
European Commission

here:

Anna dot Wielki-Sergio at ec dot europa dot eu


----------------

Here is my reply to first contact with them in March 2009:

"Please pass on my thanks to Mr Diego Canga Fano for his response to my enquiry and concerns.

It is hoped that EU wide harmonisation under EASA can be implemented with an improvement to Flight Safety. Particularly, the closing of current loopholes in the JAR system that has removed the requirement to obtain valuable flight experience from flight crew licensing criteria. This has also led to the demise of the flight instructor and general aviation route into commercial flying.

Whilst I accept that a 21 year old with excellent health, motor skills, mathematics and good interpersonal skills makes an ideal candidate for in house airline training (e.g: British Airways, KLM, Lufthansa have run sponsored schemes successfully), there is no substitute for experience. The recent incidents in New York (Airbus A320 in the Hudson River ) and at Schipol NL (Boeing 737 short finals Runway18R) highlight the need for experienced flight crew who know how to operate aircraft manually without computer dependance in order to avert catastrophe.

With defence cuts there are less ex Military pilots coming through to the airline world and many of today's younger pilots have not experienced flight outside of an automated environment apart from their initial fixed wing and Type specific Simulator training where systems can be failed in a safe learning environment.

These concerns have been researched in depth by Cranfield University see: Flight safety takes centre stage

Their Flight Operations Research Centre of Excellence (FORCE) has done useful research. But the Airline Training Industry seems to have been reluctant to take on the researchers advice due to familiarity with the old training methods and cost issues. The latter's customer airlines have been attracted to the lower cost of pilot acquisition - the trainee now pays not only for initial training but also airline training and even to fly "the line" with fare paying passengers!

Flying an aeroplane can be an enjoyable and challenging lifelong expertise. Sadly, as a result of cost cutting to appease the directors of Low Cost operators, the career is no longer attractive to new comers. This was described succinctly by Capt C. Sullenberger to US Congress:

'Sully' to Congress: Pay cuts deter experienced pilots | New Jersey Real-Time News - - NJ.com

One solution:

An apprenticeship from basic training, through instructional or General Aviation (Parachute dropping, Glider towing, Courier, Survey flying, Navigational Aid Flight Testing, Business Aviation) then on to larger aeroplanes with the Airlines provides the pilot with an interesting career and a well rounded set of skills that are indispensable to Flight Safety. Pay and conditions will also need to improve to retain experienced crews within the EU.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Yours Sincerely"

College of Pilots

What would be the reaction if a College of Pilots was formed? Like the "Royal College of Surgeons" a professional body that controlled the number of graduates from approved schools, studying and flying an approved syllabus so that the quality and quantity of pilots were provided to the market in a controlled manner. For example the college sets the number of ATPLs to be issued in a year rather than the current market driven situation.
Provide on going standards and training throughout a pilots career.
Provide support and mentoring.

Discuss?

Cpt Sunshine

I do not wish to enter the debate about the rights and wrongs of 'pay-to-fly schemes' but it seems to me that your letter over-emphasises the safety factors associated with low-houred cadet pilots on such schemes.

Of course, safety must the prime consideration. However, low-houred cadets flying large passenger aircraft is nothing new. In 1987 British Airways introduced its sponsored trainee pilot scheme for cadets age over 18 and under 24 years. Other than a genuine interest in flying, there was no requirement that the trainee should have a minimum number of flying hours. The training undertaken by the British Airways cadets was much the same as that currently undertaken by those currently on 'pay-to-fly' schemes: CPL/IR and 'frozen ATPL' followed by a Type rating on a BAC 1-11 or Boeing 737.

British Midland Airways and Britannia Airways offered similar schemes.

Apart from the obvious fact that cadets these days are having to pay for their training, I would be surprised if there were any difference in the quality of the low-houred FOs today compared with those who were trained under the sponshorship schemes. Indeed many of the cadets who have been through the pay-to-fly schemes would have been accepted by the airlines offering sponsorship shemes 10-20 years ago.

As much as I believe in the importance of a structured career path to keep the higher pay scales in existence. I can't support the argument that, a jet requires more skill and experience to fly than any other multicrew aircraft, the number if seats behind you is no argument for how difficult or challenging an aircraft is to fly. Multicrew experience is multicrew experience, jumping from a Seneca into turboprop is just as challenging as into a jet and vice versa. I would certainly own up to finding stepping back into single crew air taxi work very challenging and I would imagine lots of others would too. As far as flying jets or turboprops in a multicrew environment sops are sops, it doesn't take a special sky god like pilot to master flying a jet, 200 hour guys in an a320 is no different to 200 hour guys in a dash 8, both are a challenge with no experience, I do not believe you can use the safety card, when these legacy carriers have had structured schemes for decades. What needs to be done is finding a way of structuring a pilots career path and pay structure be it apprenticeships to gain experience or permanent positions, not short term contracts for people with little or no experience and no opportunity to gain any in any other way but these seasonal schemes which are tailored for maximum benefit to the company at the expense of low experienced pilots. A group of people that need regular consistent flying to build up a bank of experience, short term contracts are in my view detrimental to a low houred pilots ability level with long periods of little or no flying.

Agreed. Capt Sunshine, your letter is excellent and well developed, PaulW makes a very good point here in that it's not about aircraft you're flying, or how many passengers are on board (although granted, a 200 seat passenger Jet as used in your example might get the attention of those that read it) - it's about the level of experience in a multicrew environment that the pilot has amassed.

It's the introduction of pay-to-fly schemes by Easyjet and Ryanair and the likes, along with the lack of a contract of employment or reasonable pay for working prior to being line checked.

PaulW is also right in that there needs to be a structure for a pilot career in Europe. And perhaps the best way of getting this established is the creation of an institute of college of pilots that can oversee and introduce trained pilots into airlines, as you mention, similar to that of doctors or surgeons.

Of course, the big problem is that commercial aviation is just that - commercial and private. At least surgeons and doctors and the like tend to go into the NHS and so it's in the interest of the UK at least to control and manage the influx of individuals into these professions - whereas who could possibly manage the Institute for Chartered Pilots or the College of Airline Pilots? It's a great idea, and probably just what the industry needs -some regulation on pilot recruitment.

I disagree that there is a problem with low houred pilot flying in the RHS of an airliner. It has been happening for decades and generally very successfully - you don't need examples.

I do have a huge problem with UNSELECTED, useless morons paying to fly - they are the only people that do it.

Low houred pilots and PTF do go hand in hand yes but they don't have to - that is what needs to change. The financial side of things which allows people to be filtered by their ability to pay not their ability to fly, their knowledge and their personality is what is unsafe.

Low houred pilots flying airliners with experienced captains has always been safe and will always be safe. End of. Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly hasn't flown a plane. It's about having someone next you in your inexperienced days, nurturing you through the process. Whether you have 1000 hours or 250 hours makes less than no difference. End of.

Interestingly this topic came up last week and the issue of the "right stuff" getting through selection and the "wrong stuff" bridging the capability gap with cash was discussed at length. Low hours pilots that used to come through rigorous selection then used to get their heads down and actually try to learn and improve. at Cathy a poor line training performance meant you were out.. full stop. Whilst I am NOT tarring all the SSTR and PTF guys with the same brush, as many many do put the effort in, there is still a minority that feel they have PAID FOR THE RIGHT to sit RHS and basically put in minimal effort, regard the exercise as a crumpet chatting joy ride and then moan on these very forums when given their marching orders. Apart from EASY and BMI I know of no "Partner Airlines" that will send guys packing as they are fearful of the bad press and the termination of the revenue stream. The industry is becoming corrupted by spineless management and greedy TRTOs. A colleague of mine has just gone part time, not because he can afford it, but because every flight is a "Training Flight" and he is totally knackered. Address the selection proceedure, the allowed mix within an airline and the curtailment criteria and we may start moving forward.

Re-read my post, they have no reason to be. There is an experienced captain in the left hand seat. Flying exams are intense but not difficult. The thing that will shock the public is that the person flying their plane was selected on the basis of their ability/ stupidity to pay to fly the aircraft because the only value they can add to the organisation/ crew is a monetary one.

There is nothing wrong with low houred pilots flying airliners provided they have been selected for the right reasons. There never has been and there never will be. There is no point nor need to include this sentiment in any email/ letter to anyone, anywhere at anytime.

Having an extra 1000 hours on a seneca will do nothing for you when you get into a 737. There's about 59 tonnes, 105ft of length, a sh1t load of energy and a whole load of sophistication worth of difference. Get the chips of shoulders and accept it.

If you wish to discuss it in terms of a worthy food chain then that's a different story.

To add, I see you are only 14 sunshine, fair play and well done for having some standards.

The more it gets said, the more it sinks in. A Seneca is not a 737. Your right, I'll accept that. My argument is against SSTR and Pay to Fly and the "200 hr, 200 seat" cadet is the product of that.

I am going to sit down and review the letter and edit certain points out as a result of comments on this thread.

Thank you all for your honesty and please don't use my age as an excuse to hold back, if it's not worth sending then say it. Believe me, I've got some strength of character and criticism is better than filling my head with undue praise.

Yours,
Cpt. Sunshine

I have no wish to get involved in the rights and wrongs of 'pay-to-fly- schemes. However, I can't help but feel that the safety concerns with regard to low-houred 'pay-to-fly cadets' is being exaggerated. Safety must be the number one priority of all airlines and I fail to understand why a low-houred 'pay-to-fly' cadet should not be safe. For many years airlines have employed low-houred cadets.

In 1987 British Airways introduced a sponsorship scheme for cadets age over 18 and under 24. A genuine interest in flying by applicants was considered more important than actual flying experience. The British Airways training involved CPL/IR and a 'frozen ATPL' followed by a Type Rating on a BAC 1-11 or Boeing 737. British Midland Airways and Britannia Airways also operated Bursary Sponsorship schemes for those age 18-26.

With the obvious difference of not having to pay for the sponsorship schemes, it seems to me that there is no difference between the trainig undertaken by sponsored cadets in the 1980s and 1009s and those who have embarked on the current 'pay-to-fly' schemes. Many of the cadets currently on 'pay-to-fly' schemes are surely of a standard that 10-20 years ago would have seen them accepted on a sponsored scheme.

There were well trained low-houred sponsored cadets in the 1980s and 1990s and there are well-trained 'pay-to-fly' cadets today. I fail to understand why the low-houred cadets of today are considered less safe.

Aviation works on a 12-15 year sine curve.

1974 was the bottom of the curve with the oil crisis: by 1986 guys leaving the RAF were holding 2 or 3 job offers and companies were crying out for pilots.

By 1993 the curve had gone down and was heading towards the bottom: it picked up again and 2005-6 should have been good years, at the top, but 9/11 threw the wobbly which put the curve out of kilter for about 2 years.

So the curve hits rock bottom in 2001 / 2: we could expect it to pick up by 2012 / 16.

When it does the pay to fly schemes will have died a death and companies will falling over themselves for pilots, because without pilots,there is no expansion, growth or profit.

Patience.

Shady, it's refreshing to see accurate and positive posts like that.

I would love for the the 1000 hr rule to be in place and for people to gain some more hand on flying and decision making skills in light aircraft as you must do in the states, and I am currently training for my atpl's (i am not in a rush to jump into a scarebus without getting experience first)

I dont think it is that feasible to do here however, is there a big enough market for glider towing, instructing, air taxi etc to enable to get the experience? I personally dont think there is. Gliding is unfortunately a dying sport with dwindling numbers and clubs struggling to stay open (as a current glider pilot this is a known fact)

Although I have no experience of air taxi I imagine that it is dying out also with the advent of cheap low cost jet flights i imagine that will be an avenue closed soon as well.

That leaves instructing, and from what i can glean that seems to be a bit of a struggle as well now, for sure if every one of the 2-300 stary eyed OAA 'graduates' each year pursued FI route that would put far to many instructors on the market, surely there arenot that many PPL students and that amount of new instructors would destroy the already low t+c for exisiting career instructors!

Experience matters
 

"Low houred pilots flying airliners with experienced captains has always been safe and will always be safe. End of. Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly hasn't flown a plane. It's about having someone next you in your inexperienced days, nurturing you through the process. Whether you have 1000 hours or 250 hours makes less than no difference. End of."

Beak - disagree entirely with that statement except for:

"It's about having someone next you in your inexperienced days, nurturing you through the process."

That's precisely what Flying Instructors and Training Captains are for but more often than not airlines are relying on line Captains to look after newbies after accelerated Line Training to save costs.

What happens when that experienced guy next to your low houred pilot keels over from food poisoning or heart attack? It does happen.

Speaking with one of the world's best aerobatic pilots (who has seen many friends loose their lives in his 20+ years of display flying) he said you don't really know an aeroplane until you've flown it for at least 1000 hours. And he was talking about a single engined fixed gear aerobatic machine.

1000h on a Seneca 1 in crap weather and no ability to climb above terrain if you end up Single Engine on approach develops more airmanship than sitting in the cruise in a 737 on autopilot.

Yes a 737 has energy and pitch power couples when flown manually, but if one goes off the end of a runway it is big news with more than 150 lives at stake cf a Seneca accident.

Unless the low houred FO is given the input by the training Captain and allowed to practice flying skills they are learning very little and their SA and instrument scan will suffer.


"Low houred pilots flying airliners with experienced captains has always been safe and will always be safe"

Define always safe. What about accident/incidents like these?

Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uncorrected poor technique led trainee to land A320 hard

The other issue is going straight from a 200h flight school course to a shiny airliner means crew can loose handling skills and have not developed basic airmanship beyond what is needed to get by. That combined with poor pay and conditions and fatigue is a recipe of disaster.

Here are some cases of slightly higher hour FOs who went this route (ie: flight school straight into glass cockpit automated machines):


Air Accidents Investigation: 3/2009 G-THOF

http://www.ntsb.gov/dockets/aviation...027/431209.pdf

Hamble
 

Ah yes - those were the days when you had (according to the advert) to be a man to fly! And GCE's were harder than todays ATPLs!

Sorry to deviate off-topic, but with regards to the "poor landing technique"....Was it divulged what exactly he was doing wrong, coming in at too low a pitch or what? That story amazes me.

don't underrate your status
 

Having supported a graduate through all the processes of training:ppl, atpl, instrument rating, crewing. jet rating line training etc. It really cheeses me off when the likes of Ryan Air and now Easy jet can pay new pilots less than a bus driver to fly nearly 200 people. When the job comes back pilots should ensure that they raise their status to where it should be as professionals. Don't put yourselves down, I have a wide range of graduate professional qualifications and would regard the training a jet pilot goes through as more than equivalent. Start thinking we not just me.

fireflybob: excellent post! I found it fascinating that the article was dated from 1966. Amazing that the salary of the First Officer and Captain was more in 1966 than it is today at many airlines. I don't no whether to laugh or cry (maybe I'll throw my fist through the computer monitor while laughing and then cry?)

Todays "integrated" schemes are SOLD on the open market. They are no-where near as good as the old Kemble/Approved BA , Lufthansa flgiht schools. The latter were much closer to Military flight training with seriously challenging entry tests.

The point is folk expect to jump straight out of flight school (where they are not even taught spin recovery because the approved schools have removed their aerobatic a/c for cost reasons) into a Jet job.

The Military do not do this. Take the RAF - Entry tests then EFT, streaming according to ability then Multi Engine (turboprop B200) or DHFS(Turbo rotor!) or BFT (Turbo prop!). If FJT streamed it's Valley on Hawk, then Tactical (Hawk), then OCU (type rating and line training!) before SQN.

This is a real progression. It develops the best students to the highest level. The Hudson Ditching may well have been different if the FO was a 200h cadet as the cockpit workload would have increased hugely.