As some have brought this up:
Having flown with MPL and straight from school sub 200hr fATPL pilots, in my experiance there is little too choose betwean them so long as the selection and training have been done to a high standard. The MPL pilots had been selected by the airline, who then kept a very close eye on the training.
When the training is not of a high enough standard then the end product suffers as a result. In both schemes the actual flying is so low and in particular the solo flying, that it is almost irrelevant. This is where the MPL scheme scores because the sim training is directly aimed at the next step ie line operations, decision making, failure management etc etc.

This is a completely different subject to p2f.

Giles has raised career progression and as a refute has shown us how many turboprop aircraft there are in the uk.
However until recently no one was moving from dash8 to uk jet employment. The airlines almost all preferred low hour cadets. Therefore as a career move, joining a turboprop airline was a dead end. The only way out for many was a move to the sandpit. It is cheaper and more cost effective for the airlines.
Is it any wonder that wannabees go p2f?

There used to be bonding, no cost to candidate so long as they met their commitments.
Then pay up front but reimbursed over time so after 3 years no cost if you stayed.
Now in many different disguises candidate pays for all training, including TR and either pays or has a reduced salary during line training, reduced cost for airline or in some cases profit.

Decision making ability is meant to be a pilot skill yet there are guys out there with over €130, 000 debt and no realistic employment opportunities! Good decision:ugh:

So back to topic.
Do we include 50% salary during training as p2f?

The thread was an attempt to name and shame P2F airlines. But right away, people began to write about what was and what was not to be considered P2F, notably RyanAir and EasyJet. Others wrote that P2F and Cadet candidates were safe and that P2F was morally wrong but technically safe since it was almost like Cadet programs.

I think that making people pay for their type rating is P2F. Having a number of large airlines operating just one aircraft type is a fairly recent phenomenon, with most large airlines generally being made up of several types of aircraft. What about those airlines that operate several different types of aircraft, would they also expect the candidates to pay for their TR and have experience on type before coming on board? BA for example has six TRs. Thomson has 4 or 5. Air Canada has 6. What type rating should such candidate buy should they decide to join a multi type airline ? (assuming they also began this pay for your TR practice). Then what about changing types once you are in ? I have flown 4 different types of aircraft since I started at my present company. Not for fun but because the numbers of aircraft changed and the company's pilot's NEEDS of different aircraft changed. I had to change types to adapt to corporate decisions. Would RyanaAir and EasyJet have billed me for a TR every time I changed aircraft ?
I think TR should be paid by the employer and that having the pilot pay for his TR is "pay to fly". Imagine what will happen when RyanAir decides to purchase a fleet of 787s, or EasyJet a fleet of A350s?. Who will fly them ? Who will pay for the TR? Will the 787 and 350 positions be sold to the highest bidder ? They will probably start if off as a new company and make everyone pay to join.

Finally about the safety of low time pilots. If well trained low time candidates are just as safe as the others, why not put two low time guys together in the same flight deck? If that argument that they are safe was true, they would. But they don't. And never will.

The accident and incident reports that have involved P2F pilots and pilots that had entered the airlines as low time Cadets never mention this fact. There are no statistics about P2F incidents. As an example, I have already cited that the last three consecutive LionAir Accidents and incidents involved crews whose SIC were P2F. These reports do not mention this fact. So there are no statistics about it. When I wrote this, someone advanced that P2F had nothing to do with these incidents and that LionAir had other problems, not related to P2F which were at the root of these accidents and stated as evidence, that Europe, despite P2F and Cadets, had a safe record. AirAsia most likely had a P2F pilot at the controls. AF447's SIC and PF had "flown" about 6000 of his 6500 hours as SIC on A320/340/330. The SIC and PF in the Air France A340 that overran the runway and burned in Toronto in Aug 2005 was a Cadet, hired at zero time. After his muti-IFR CPL he was hired as SIC on A320 before moving on to the 340. There are probably many others, should one take the time to look.......

I think that there are many P2F and Cadet related incidents in Europe that are just swept under the rug because they go against the trend and because big money is involved.

I reiterate that I think that low time P2F and Cadet type programs by-pass an important part of a pilots flight training when they go straight to flying highly automated aircraft in a RADAR controller IFR environment. Granted they become efficient at operating the aircraft in that environment when everything goes as planned or as practiced in the Simulator, but often real life emergencies are not straight and forward and were never practiced in the simulator.
While I was at my present company, one A330 ran out of fuel over the Atlantic at night and a A310 lost his whole rudder in cruise flight. Both of these aircraft landed intact with no injuries. These are not things that one practices in the simulator.

How many times in accident reports do you read that the pilots had never practiced a particular event in the simulator ? There are many malfunctions that occur and that are not in the non-normal checklist and for which we have never trained, and that is when experience kicks in and often saves the day.

People here keep stating that anything that is not related to flying jets concerns Cessna 172s but that is not true. There is whole world of aviation in between the 172s and the airline jets which used to be part of a pilots' experience. If that part is to be skipped, it must me replaced by something substantial and that something substantial cannot and should not be 500 hours of PNF at LionAir. It has to be real flying.

Why is an ATPL issued at 1500 hours and not at 200 ? Because the authorities in every country recognized the EXPERIENCE one gains during those extra 1300 hours as valuable and necessary. If 1250 of those extra 1300 hours are done flying straight and level on autopilot, with the PIC doing most take offs and approaches, what experience is gained ? They are just lines in a logbook.

Edit: I just saw this new thread:

http://www.pprune.org/terms-endearme...rated-dec.html

Why does a company like RyanAir need to resort to Direct Entry Captains? What about its thousands of experienced SIC ? Someone is going to write that this has nothing to do with P2F.
Yet if RyanAir had been in the habit of hiring experienced 4000 hour Q400 captains as B737 SIC instead of 200 hour pilots, would this be necessary ? No because such a pilot would be ready to go left seat when needed at RyanAir.

There are numbers confirming that there has been increase of upgrade failures within some of the companies heavily relying on Cadet pilots.
We are talking substantial numbers, such that they now are getting experienced FO's and DEC's to fill the gaps.

I have heard about this happening with at least 3 major companies!

The failure is not on Tech or Flying skills, but rather No Tech issues!

So I guess maybe it would have helped them if they had some more "life experience" - even if that involved some C172 flying alone, personally I prefer the PA28 - and love taking it for a spin every once in a while!

It's an airplane, no matter if an airliner or C172, different size - but take away all the fancy bells and whistles, and they all fly the same!

It seems some people here rely heavily on the Cadets to assure their retirement package deal!

Kirks Gusset,

Nowhere in my books does it state that Boeing recommends to leave the automatics on whenever possible. Quite the opposite actually.

Furthermore, any Safe airline should have the following mentioned in their SOP: crews are encouraged to fly manually with or without flightdirector, both on departure and approach, whenever traffic and weather situation allows.

And yes, We often disconnect all below RVSM:ok:

That I am bringing up a subject on which there is no data because there is a reluctance to look at this subject. We should go back 20 years and look at all accidents in which it was determined that the crew had some blame and look at what kind of flying background the crews had. Only then will we be able to determine if there is a correlation between crew experience and accident data.

The KLM pilot that you mention is the unwilling and posthumous father of modern day CRM by the way. He didn't lack experience but did lack much else....... That was a case where a great lesson was learned from an accident from which we all benefited, although there was initially a reluctance at KLM, to accept the report's conclusions about their poster boy captain.

Aviation arrived where it is today by learning from mistakes. Many mistakes have been made in the past, more are being done today and more will be made in the future. We must be ready to identify the mistakes, analyse them and take corrective action.

I think P2F is one such mistake......

Truckflyer:

A quick question; do you really spin your PA28?

Experienced pilots come with pre conceptions about how we should be treated and the terms and conditions we should work under. The 200 hr 20 year old up to his neck in dept is just happy to be earning something and fly the shiny metal.
We are moving back to Victorian times, except it's not the mill house owners wearing posh clothes and drinking port, it's the company CEO and shareholders skimming he cream at the expense of the staff.
Does Dave and shazza care about 5 euros on a ticket price to pay for good training, experienced and well rested crew? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't notice, In fact, if my 6 hour experience trucking back on a Lo Co mob from sharm yesterday is anything to go by, all the want is to buy cheap fags and get pissed and sunburnt!

Experienced pilots, even if not on the type have capacity in the air in that cannot be earnt anywhere else. It's just companies would rather pay less and take the insurance claim when it comes, and why should a ceo care? Well they have spent the bonuses, taken the share issues and have a fat pension fund contribution, so as long as they can distance themselves from corporate manslaughter charges (which is why there are many layers to the post holder corporate onion) then why should they care? Well you don't expect them to have a conscience do you?

The 20 year old 200 hour pilot should owe no more than his CPL Multi IFR (no TR debt) and get PAID to fly in a smaller aircraft.

I hear you brother!

Despegue, regretfully I must completely disagree with your stance. We are not talking about erosion of basic flying skills and the need for occasional manual flying but normal day to day operations. Hand flying from LHR! Boeing FCTM section 1.34 777 deals with the advised use of automation whenever possible, I am unsure what books you are reading.. out of RVSM.. well, we often are below 290 for more than 25 minutes, not sure about hand flying a triple for this long... scary stuff.. keep it for the sim!

from the 737NG Boeing FCTM
 

Automatic systems give excellent results in the vast majority of situations. Deviations from expected performance are normally due to an incomplete understanding of their operations by the flight crew. When the automatic systems do not perform as expected, the pilot should reduce the level of automation until proper control of path and performance is achieved. For example, if the pilot failed to select the exit holding feature when cleared for the approach, the airplane will turn outbound in the holding pattern instead of initiating the approach. At this point, the pilot may select HDG SEL and continue the approach while using other automated features. A second example, if the airplane levels off unexpectedly during climb or descent with VNAV engaged, LVL CHG may be selected to continue the climb or descent until the FMC can be programmed.
Early intervention prevents unsatisfactory airplane performance or a degraded flight path. Reducing the level of automation as far as manual flight may be necessary to ensure proper control of the airplane is maintained. The pilot should attempt to restore higher levels of automation only after airplane control is assured. For example, if an immediate level-off in climb or descent is required, it may not be possible to comply quickly enough using the AFDS. The PF should disengage the autopilot and level off the airplane manually at the desired altitude. After level off, set the desired altitude in the MCP, select an appropriate pitch mode and re-engage the autopilot.

Gilles, do you have any hard evidence, other than speculative, that the PTF incident rate is higher than non PTF guys with the same experience in the commercial airline environment. The last study by the Australian authority did not support your claims and as far as I can see, there is no evidence that PTF represents any greater danger, other than on the wallet..

I have been a commercial pilot for more than 21 years, well before PTF, this cockpit experience rule has always been there, I am not sure of the point, flight two crew decks have always had Captains and FOs??

Basic question.. why Name and Shame? what's the goal here?

Correct!! perfect.. Automatic systems give excellent results in the vast majority of situations. This is the whole point, the FCTM advises actions when the automation is not doing what you want it to..:)
Airbus:
X Recommendations for Optimum Use of Automation
IX.1 Using Automation - General
Correct use of automated systems reduces workload and significantly improves the flight crew time and resources for responding to:
An unanticipated change (e.g., ATC instruction, weather conditions, ...); or, An abnormal or emergency condition.
During line operations, AP and A/THR should be engaged throughout the flight, especially in marginal weather conditions or when operating into an unfamiliar airport.
When operating in fair environmental conditions and at low-density airports, flight crew can elect to fly the departure or arrival manually to maintain flying skills.
Using AP and A/THR also enables flight crew to pay more attention to ATC communications and to other aircraft, particularly in congested terminal areas and at high-density airports.
AP and A/THR should be used during a go-around and missed-approach to reduce workload.

What I am stating is that a study should be done about all accidents in the last 20 years in which pilot error was a factor and look at what kind of experience those pilots had, and by "experience" I do not mean hours. Looking at recent random accidents and incidents (the last three LionAir, the AirAsia, the last RyanAir, AF447 and the Toronto AF crash, all involved pilot error (or so it seems so far for AirAsia) and all involved P2F or Cadets.

In light of this, I think a study should be done to look into the matter........

I just looked at your Australian study. This study compared lower time and higher time pilots in flight during the course of 287 flight sectors.

This study does not touch at all at what why I am stating. What I am stating is that a pilot who spent 4000 hours flying several smaller/medium types including some as PIC, will generally turn into a better B737 or A320 pilot and will generally be able to make captain before another 4000 pilot who got hired at 200 hours straight into an A320 or the B737.

Why name and shame P2F airlines ? Because except for maybe a person or two whose motives we can only guess, I haven't found anyone that thinks this system is good and ought to be pursued. This practice is a threat to the pilot profession as I see it and needs to be stopped before it spreads to other airlines.

Go back Twenty years, Thirty years, Forty years..... You will find accidents in their droves. In the Fifties, Sixties, Seventies etc. These accidents were happening to usually very experienced crews. That is because the flight decks of airliners of those eras only had very experienced crews for the most part. As an evolving transport science, a lot was learned through this era. Most of the common failures have been incorporated into modern methodology, even though (sadly) they are still often misunderstood and very often misquoted particularly here on these type of threads.

When I was growing up through this era is often seemed that not a Sunday (always seemed to be a Sunday for some reason?) went by without the TV news headlining the burnt out wreck of an airliner somewhere around the world. Even though air transport has grown Tenfold, the absolute rate of accidents has shrunk markedly. Improvements in our understanding of many things, not least our own behaviour, has been vital to that advancement. It continues and likely will for a long time, to be something we tweak, modify and overhaul as we progress.

In the first two decades of the Twenty First century there has been a much greater focus of looking at what is being trained into airline pilots at the basic level. The regulatory authorities, the training industry, professional pilots, and "the airlines," are looking at what is happening at the most basic level, and better adapting that training to what is relevant today rather than what seemed relevant 50 years ago.

What I see is a much better ab-initio pilot. When I first flew with new cadets some 15+ years ago, the very first thing I noticed (and I was very sceptical at the time) was the complete sea change in CRM (non-technical attributes) that these new trainees brought with them. These were pilots whose selection, training and attitude meant they listened, learned (quickly,) weren't afraid to challenge when necessary, and progressed far more rapidly than had generally been the case historically. Nothing that has happened in the last 15+ years has caused me to change that observation, other than it is now taken as normal.

The people who trot out "life experience" as some sort of alternative for selective and improved training are frankly deluding themselves. In fairness there aren't many, and they can usually be defined as the "late starters" who resent the situation they find themselves in. At my age I think I have "life experience" in abundance, although quite what that will bring to the table on tomorrow's Tenerife I have no idea.

"Pay 2 Fly" has also become one of those terms, perhaps not like "beauty," but certainly in the eye of the beholder. I used to assume it applied to some dodgy company in Miami that was flogging a few hours experience in a jet to the "vanity publishing" brigade. These days it seems to be applied to anything and everything connected with an individual putting their hand in their pocket. To that end it is almost meaningless.

My career path, rather like Gilles Hudicourt's, has never involved paying an employer for a type rating or indeed anything else, but times are changing. I have little doubt that a change of company now, would very likely involve facing those type of costs, simply because that is the way this business has evolved. If cadets (apprentice airline pilots) are not being paid a full senior F/O's salary, or indeed any salary is that P2F? I guess so, but there are very few apprenticeship programmes in any industry where this isn't the case.

It is human nature (and we all do it) to want a situation that favours ourselves. Often that is buried in a cloak of mutual altruism, but is a cloak that tears easily. Nevertheless, survival is usually about adapting to your environment rather than fighting an inevitable losing battle against it. The nature of the business has changed and evolved. The nature of the training has changed and evolved. The financial realities have changed and evolved. The survivors are likely to be those individuals who can also change and evolve. The successful are likely to be the ones who stay one jump ahead of those changes.

In the Sixties, Seventies, Eighties and perhaps the Nineties the job of airline pilot was often well paid, certainly well respected, had a certain cachet and romance in the mind of the general public, and very often had its own intrinsic perks and rewards. It was a difficult and busy career path and there was a lot of intense competition to climb the ladders that were available. Apart from a very, very, few "approved" courses, the entry requirements to climb onto these ladders were such that attrition was progressive. In the last two decades it has simply become " generation x-factor" where everybody thinks it is their right to join a big queue and become a star. The entry requirements have become cheap and easy. As a result, there are tens of thousands of hopefuls who believe that simply meeting the entry requirements should be enough for their big break. Worse still, they believe that if they get to the top of the ladder they will find a world of respect, kudos, adventure and high remuneration a la nineteen sixties.
Inevitably they won't!

Given the change in the requirements of airlines for the reasons given, and given the need for potential aspirants to generally find the best remuneration in the shortest possible time, it is very difficult to advance the idea to a serious wannabe that they should work there way up through a series of third and second tier jobs, as indeed many of us did in days long gone. Those jobs are simply not there in sufficient or even relative quantity, to provide a meaningful and workable career path for most people.

I think listing every airline with "P2F" is fine once you have defined what "P2F" means. However, I fear it will be an ever growing list that will even extend to Canada one day, if it hasn't already.
Do they? I have read the thread again and haven't seen any evidence of that. I can tell you that cadets have done nothing to enhance my retirement package. In fact, rather the opposite, but that isn't their fault. Perhaps my "life experience" has been deprived of the "joy" of somebody like yourself sat at my right hand side for the last 27 years? I guess we will never know. :)

Giles, I don't know how wide and varied your experience is, but over the last decade I must have flown with a couple of hundred different FOs, albeit some of them just a few times. What I can tell you is that there is no discernible pattern of who is good and who is bad based on experience. I have seen some very poor high experience guys and some excellent cadets, as well as vice versa. The one reliable factor is attitude - there is a specific demographic that has an arrogance issue associated with low experience (with exceptions of course), and they are the ones that can cause the most problems through distractions and frustration of other crew members. It's not that they're cadets that creates the problem, but a problem with their earlier training and also their culture and motivation in become a pilot in the first place (prestige and show boating rather than a love of flying).

Included in P2F or not, on revenue flights for experienced pilots, it's very low of a certain airline...

Very experienced friend of mine joined easy as a second officer on a reduced salary, no duty pay and having paid over the odds for a 320 rating to then be told after 6 months that he would become a first officer after 12 months as per contract but now only on 75%

These sharp employment practises place an unacceptable strain on PEOPLE!
We all have debts to service, be it the mortgage, car loan, ex wife etc and the flight deck of an aircraft can be an unforgiving place when the brown smelly stuff hits the fan(or fan blades) when exposed to personal issues. It should not be unreasonable to expect a level playing field in a company, we are not talking about a foot ware company with zero hour contracts, this is a huge and profitable organisation.
We are professional people who work hard at safety and if there are guys in the industry that don't cut the mustard then there are enough processes and checks in any company to weed them out. The shear number of low housed guys entering the system is purely to keep wages low and oppress any general decent amongst the ranks.
Employ the best available candidates based on experience and suitability. The student cadet with a big wallet may be the best but I have to say I doubt it.

As for me, I don't fancy 4 sector days with 900 hours a year. I may not have a big pension Pot when I retire but I still think I will have some life left in me to enjoy it. I was told of one company with 4000 crew that 100 are off with cancer of various forms. Connected? I don't know but sobering none the less!

Gilles,

Although I do agree that your time on other types before getting on the airline jets is a very good experience you must also consider the most logical option in some of the non-aviation minded countries.

If you, for example, look at my home country Belgium. There is no air taxi, there is no turboprop job, instructor jobs are very limited. Corporate is possible if you know someone in the company... When you get out of school and you are offered an Avro or A320 job (TR paid by the company), would you say no? Would you say: "Thanks for the offer but I'll go abroad for some years first to have some experience on other types of aircraft?" I think the most logical thing for a person to do is to take the job.

Should a Dutch cadet refuse a job offer from KLM (one of the best paid jobs in Europe)?


Pay2work is a disease not just limited to aviation and should be prohibited.