Test Panel says"
Perhaps you should start your career in the same manner rather than bitching and moaning about those who are more qualified... Don't you think?

Trade Winds in under the impression that I have to disagree with this statement... It's the pilot willing to pay to sit in the right seat that's responsible for the P2F programs. Imagine... if pilots with a sense of self respect... refused to pay for such schemes? Then there's a true level paying ground.


At the end of the day, however, the P2Fer is part of the problem and not part of the solution as far as raising the bar on terms and conditions and most of all respect that pilots deserve for the hard work they preformed in order to earn their positions with the airlines.

"That is, with the greatest of respect, :mad:. All MPL courses include an element of solo flying. However, even if they didn't, I wouldn't be concerned. Bumbling around in a Cessna doing VFR navigation has precisely zero relevance to airline flying"


Agreed to a certain extent but the most valuable lessons about my personal limitations occurred by "pushing" it whilst solo. These lessons have given me a healthy respect for the environment we work in (terrain, weather and aircraft).


I don't believe these aviation lessons can be replicated in an airline environment where the captain "carries the can".

John Smith is correct in his post above. P2F is not more or less unsafe than any other career stream when comparing similar quality Ops and training depts.

The only relevant point for discussion is the effect that p2f (and again this includes the latter day version of the "over priced course under paid initial salary" pairing) - has had and is having on the industry as a whole

For sure in the British Isles the recruitment on jet fleets in the last decade has been unprecedented. There has been a huge recruitment onto huge expanding jet fleets. Yet using a wider view, the industry shows evidence of "career stagnation" and lowering terms and conditions whilst requiring a general increase in duty.

Jump onto a jet fleet at one of the locos. It is hard work, lifestyle affecting hard work. 4 sector days on one of the loco enhanced rosters, once the novelty has been sated and the feel for a move on to somewhere better with more of a work life balance, where are you going to jump to and how?

The need for cadets is essential for any industry, however the current high percentage cadet recruitment in the bulk of the industry, certainly the British Isles, is damaging the industry as a whole. Not from a safety perspective. But from just about every other employment and career perspective

There are winners. Unfortunately its not those at the pointy end.

in addition to that, some of the figures bandied about for the "linked courses" are a huge investment for a short term career

"Bumbling around in a Cessna doing VFR navigation has precisely zero relevance to airline flying."

I do not agree with this point, it's not necessary the flying skills, it's the experience you are faced when flying around X amount of hours in GA, real life experience when you don't have instructor in the right hand seat to guide you or take over when things go bad.

Your decision making becomes reality, not just a model that you practise and repeat again and again, until you know it by heart inside out.
There is a big difference from being alone with various factors such as weather changes, fuel, diversions etc - where not all is planned for you by Ops - where you actually have to make the decisions that might have a real impact on your life, not just you have failed a sim/training session.

90 hours total real flight time + XXX amount of hours in the sim of course. That for me can give you a good pilot on a nice day, when everything goes after plan. However I am sceptical how they will be in a real life emergency.
I can't imagine in those 90 hours, they have many hours without an instructor, have few hours solo is not going to give you much experience with real life decision making.

One of the misconceptions that some here have about P2F, is that there is no quality control of the pilots just because they have "paid their way in" - however that is not correct. Even though they P2F, they are normally put trough same training program as cadets are, and need to go trough the same hoops as everbody else has too.

For those who have done the P2F that I know about, there have many traps and dangers with this, it simple has not been easy going without any issues. And great risk is involved in it financially and the uncertainty before, during and after.

Some of them have lost much money, training has been hard they had delays for many months before completing sims, training etc.
A few I know managed to get proper jobs after this 300 - 500 hours experience. It varied a lot from what they managed to achieve, but it simply was not easy, and for some they have gained valuable life experience trough this.
For me this life experience helps develop future decision making, and is a useful for the future.
Much more then some spoiled child who gets paid everything by mummy/daddy to attend overpriced integrated flight school, who produces the next machine part for an airline!

All the ones I know from P2F, funded it themselves, in other words they did not have somebody giving them the money to do it, but worked hard and decided this is how they wanted to use their own money.

It is massively wrong for the industry, however if you want to look in these details, you must take look at many more aspects of the industry.

It is the "XXX" that you gloss over. The simulator time is nearly all simulated "airliner" time. It is time where the majority of training is focused on real world emergencies. Decision making is at the very bedrock of these syllabi. This is why graduates of these courses ascend such a steep learning curve and why the airlines are so keen to acquire them.

I have been doing this job for a very long time now. I have flown with cadets for a long time as well. Recently I spent 50 hours in a simulator alongside a 500 hour cadet pilot. I have to say I was extremely impressed with the attitude, aptitude, learning curve, and decision making ability that I witnessed from the other seat.

Contrast that with the "it's everybody's fault but mine" whining, that is such a trademark of "one or two" people on this site.

The airline wants a high level of surety. What it doesn't want is captains (like me) complaining about the standard of the lady or gentleman sat in the other seat.


What a blinkered viewpoint! "life experience"? I recently spoke to a cadet in his mid thirties who trained in accountancy. He had spent years in that role working in the UK and abroad and had saved all of the money he had paid out for his flight training. From the stories he told he seemed to have a lot of "life experience." Similarly I meet cadets who have had sureties and guarantees provided by parents or grandparents so that they can borrow the large sums of money they needed to complete their ab-initio flight training. I am sure there are individuals that have been gifted the money as well, although why this correlates to them being "spoiled children" I am not sure.

Over the last Twenty plus years, the airline industry has had a metamorphosis from being a difficult entry career with a limited supply of eligible aspirants, to being a relatively easier career with a tidal wave of eligible aspirants. The changes have resulted in a massive oversupply of "wannabes" Even if nothing else changed (and a lot has) that simple equation imbalance would drive both reward and opportunity levels through the floor. Indeed it has done, yet people still seem shocked by this, and believe that the world should facilitate their passage and then revert back to the realities of the last Three decades of the Twentieth century.

The stark reality is that most airlines survive in a "low cost" world. Passengers wont pay the fares they did in the Seventies and Eighties. Deregulation, free trade and competition, have revolutionized the landscape in many industries, but certainly in this one.

For an airline quality is cheap. Unlike the situation Twenty or Thirty years ago. You can still demand the best candidates from the best training backgrounds. You can demand they paid for every penny of their training. You can demand they pay or guarantee their type ratings and associated training costs. Even then, the crowds of qualified aspirants stretch over the hills and far away.

Is it unfair? Sure it is!
Is it expensive? You bet!
Is it high risk? For the applicant it certainly is!
Is it going to change anytime soon? Only if those crowds evaporate, and there is no sign of that happening!

No, but did you read the first word in the title of the thread?

In any event it is erroneous since every aspect has a relevance.

You have just clarified an important point for me, about your problem and the problem of those other low time guys that chase the big shinny jet dream right after flight school.

When did I ever mention anything about "hardships" ? I said I was PAID for every commercial flight I ever flew. Whenever someone paid me to fly an aircraft, any aircraft, I was in heaven. Those 6500 hours I did before joining an airline with large jets were the best years of my flying career. All my good stories are from that period. All my good souvenirs are from that period. Most of my flying experience was gained during that period.
I was not even thinking of flying heavy jets when I had 1500 hours, because I was following the normal path that everyone around me was following. At 1500 hours, I was looking up to become a Curtis C-46 pilot, a Douglas DC-4, a Douglas DC-6 or maybe an HS-748 pilot. My wet dreams were about flying a P-51, a Sea Fury, or maybe a PBY in the Caribbean. I knew the big jets would arrive later, naturally and in due time. And they did. Just like grey hair and baldness do.

Plus I never had huge flight school loans to pay back. I never had more than $10,000 USD in flight training debt in my whole life. And I paid all of my initial training myself. When I had 1500 hours, I read Flying, PlaneandPilot, Business and Commercial Aviation, and magazines about War-birds. Not about airliners. To me, transport category jets were boring buses in which one hauled people in a boring way when one got older. The pilot I admired most was my 30 year old Capt "Duke" who could three point our C-46 on Montserrat's 3300 foot runway (now buried under lava)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._H._Bramble_Airport

So you see, there are two kinds of pilots. The kind that live their dream, and the other kind, your kind, that think that those other pilots living their dreams have a chip on their shoulder and went through "hardships".....
Our very reasons for flying are so different.

I now understand your point of view very well. That statement was so eloquent.......

Gilles Hudicourt

I think you need to have it out with the senior pilots/training captains who are part of the problem (you do not have to look too far up) and the ones that set up the big training organisation in the first place and have pushed for the MPL schemes etc.

You may be surprised to find out a lot of them have climbed the same ladder you have and should really be more inclined to support your point of view. In the end however, this cannot be so, as it's not financially beneficial to take the moral high ground. Money talks, pockets need lining and palms need greasing.

At the risk of sounding cliché and repetitive, the fish rots from the head down!

Yes, and what they will tell you is that the attrition rates are a tiny fraction of what they were in those days (I was there!) That the ab-initio training is something that they have an intrinsic involvement with. That the real world costs of putting a pilot in the seat mean that has to be done at minimum cost and risk. That has to be balanced against all of the other risks, but given the candidate is assuming the financial risk profile, those risks are already mitigated from onset. In other words, pick the best, it won't cost any more.

During the evolution of the last Three decades, the process went from selecting high time self improvers and military career changers, whose introductory training (type, base and line etc.) the airline paid for, to initially bonding the recruit for their training costs. The problem (certainly in the UK) was that it was difficult, expensive, and time consuming to enforce those contracts. You only have to look back to the early days of this website to find pages and pages of people posting threads about how they could successfully escape their obligations. The airlines found an answer!

The legal system in the US and possibly Canada may well lend itself to making enforcement of such contracts a cheaper and far easier process? Certainly in the UK (and probably other countries as well,) the evolution was brought about by some of the candidates. I remember reams of threads 15 years ago screaming about the unfairness of "bonding." It was slavery, servitude, and all the same terms you see bandied about today concerning modern candidate loaded costs.

There are very few airlines (or other businesses) where survival isn't measured by the size of the accessible cash pile. Businesses are simply not going to dip into that pile where they don't have to. They are not going to waste money chasing after broken promises or commitments (from their potential employees,) even if they have few compunctions about doing it themselves.

By all means sound cliché and repetitive, but navigating a passage through the realities of a potential career today or in the next decade, means carefully researching the history, evolution and realities of todays market, as well as the forecasts of what lies on the horizon for at least the next decade. It is astonishing how few people do! The directions have been loud and clear for a long time now, but an awful lot of people seem to smudge their keyboards with the earwax they have accumulated on both forefingers! You don't have to look (too far up) to find them either!

P2F or cadet program's are not a problem if well managed with proper systems in place.
The problems arise when airlines cut corners in training for inexperienced pilots.
I would guess that the airlines that cut wages/employments costs are probably the same airlines that cut costs in other safety related areas.

I came through a general aviation background to end up in a major airline. The airline had cadet program's for many years & were able to select the best available candidates and give the best available training. The end product (cadet pilots) were generally excellent.

I have worked with other airlines that cut costs where ever possible & the end product (cadet pilots) are questionable at best. Fortunately, most of the Captains come from old school backgrounds & can keep the blue side up.

It seems a Pay-to-Work Pilot from France was killed this week during the Terrorist Attack on the Corinthia Hotel in Tripoli :(

well...maybe next time, some guys will think twice before paying to fly and going in such country ? (who does not know the risks ? seriously...).

many seem to forget one thing.
P2F is not only about flying skills (safety), but it is about allowing anybody to be in the right seat....you what I mean... anybody who has a really bad intention, can be in the right seat and have controls of a big jet.
The door is open, just pay. :D

What a load of crock!!

C172
 

I had my first pitot failure when I was doing city tours with a 172, it was a fly in the pitot tube, right after takeoff and IAS went down to 0 mph.

Put it anyway you want, it was very instructive. Few years later when I lost altitude and airspeed indication right after takeoff, I knew what was going on.
Guess what, the 400 hrs FO froze and I was single pilot for a long minute....

Any experience is valuable.

The report indicates that he had a "glider pilot's license issued in 2001" nothing more.

The original thread was about airlines that allow pilots to pay to fly, perhaps an attempt to " name and shame", however,now it's drifted into the normal "safety compromised" by these guys paying to sit in the RHS or LHS (AKA Command programs).
Perhaps we should consider some facts:

1) Not all PTF are low hours, many are very high hours and have age related problems with getting mainstream jobs, these guys are usually financially sound and can afford without any pressure to try and lift their career.

2) As a trainer I can tell you many ex military guys take much longer to adapt and their ability to "step in" is often much much lower than the average guy straight from flying school with no hours..part culture of not wanting to criticise the Captain, part inability to forget old embedded procedures. Often highly technically competent and knowledgeable but lacking in basic procedures. Over 50% of our " events" arise from these guys and their instinct to revert to "basic modes" rather than use the automatics, VNAV etc etc.

3) Recent risk studies show clearly, pilots with less than 300 hrs fall into the same operational risk category as those with over 10,000hrs, one group no idea, the other group too complacent.

4) In our company, of the last 4 intakes, each of approx 50 pilots, 95% of the guys with less than 200 hrs completed the line training with no problems within the allotted 40 sectors, 50% of the guys with over 1000 hrs took an additional 10 sectors and 30% of the guys with more than 4000 hrs took an additional 20 sectors.

5) Our internal safety risk reporting system shows 80% of all events occur with high hours FOs close to command upgrade (overconfident) and less than 3% occur with new FOs within 2 years of joining.

Real airline experience always prevails over GA flying, all tho stick and rudder nonsense teaches nothing about high altitude manoeuvring or high energy management. There is a world of difference between " decision making" in a C172 that can land on a cabbage patch and a medium airliner.

PTF is a regrettable development extension from the SSTR, but to a degree forums like this promoted it by preaching a SSTR " without hours on type is useless" . The SSTR is here to stay and PTF is gradually dying a natural death due to line training capacity. A quick look at the jobs forums shows many many instructor positions advertised with airlines associated with this system, so who's the real villain?
;)

P2F rippers
 

Air Arabia...and they don't honour what yu pay either..I burnt my money with them.I wouldn't do it again!

Kirks Gusset,

As a Trainer, I am amazed that you critisize ex Mil. For reverting to Basic flying.

Luckily, in my company, we have a VERY IMPORTANT rule: If in doubt: Go down a level in Automation, if needed, automatics OFF and fly the aircraft...LIKE A BASIC TRAINER. This works with ANY aircraft.
No bull like reverting to Vnav etc. You just complicate things that way.
And guess what, we minimize our events thanks to this, but of course, we actually teach our crews how to fly their aircraft without using flight directors and automatics...:ok: and do this nearly every day.

Despegue, Surely you are not advocating disconnecting the automatics in a 777 and hand flying from 40000? VNAV is not a reversion mode, it is the normal mode. The types of events that catch these guys out are " direct to" without modifying VNAV path for MSA and the thing dives like a hawk, then they revert to VS, so we see VS-3000 with MCP 220 and the whole thing is a mess. Generally the ex military guys score well with raw data flying ILS and Visuals but just take longer to grasp the basic operating concepts. We do not teach anyone how to fly, we assume they can do that at the selection stage, we teach them how to operate the systems according to the manufacturers recommendations and company procedures. A quick review of both Boeing and Airbus FCTM will show that where possible leave the automatics engaged..the issue with these guys is always the same..they are not in their comfort zone..it takes time.. the debate on the thread extended to a reflection of hours versus safety, the point I am making is that they are not mutually exclusive