Commuter airlines' underpaid pilots are plain scary!

[pipepatrol]

It's nothing but the truth. Anyone who thinks any differently is just being a pessimist. We all saw what was happening just a couple years ago.

At least part of that might have had to do with a bubble in the economy that ended up bursting.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

This is only going to be at the regionals, correct? The majors wont have guys in the front seat with only 250 hrs, will they?

I doubt it. At least not in this country. Other countries have been doing it for many years, though.

I am confused. I knew Europe was doing the MPL, but I didn't think we were considered it here. I have no info on it. I asked seriously, not to debate, but how can ALPA be for this???

It is being seriously debated in the States, and Alteon (Flight Safety Boeing) is involved in the implementation of one of the trial programs in Australia. If it's successful in a few countries overseas, you can bet that we'll see it here.

If filling seats were a real problem, then ATP and other flight schools can churn them out. Shouldn't ALPA be clamoring for an ATP or something close to it as an entry level requirement?

The resolution that ALPA passed talks about going 40 years without any advances in training requirements. When you think about it, it's absolutely true that our current method of training pilots is not geared towards producing professional air line pilots. It's geared towards producing hobby pilots, and then the airlines have the rush them through a compacted training course to turn them into air line pilots. A training curriculum that focuses on producing air line pilots from the beginning actually sounds like a legitimate idea. Should we be forcing students to study chandelles and lazy 8s, or should they be focusing on instrument skills, engine failures, lost comm procedures, emergency descents, etc...? I think the latter is far more productive.

Ah, we'll have to talk about this over a couple beers one of these evenings. It's going to be a tough sell to get me convinced that the MPL is a benefit to the profession.

I'm still not entirely sure that I'm a supporter myself. It depends on the implementation. In concept, I could support the idea, though, and that's basically what ALPA said in their resolution. They created a long list of requirements that they believe need to be included in any MPL program, and their support was based upon those elements being included.

 

[Trip7]

The resolution that ALPA passed talks about going 40 years without any advances in training requirements. When you think about it, it's absolutely true that our current method of training pilots is not geared towards producing professional air line pilots. It's geared towards producing hobby pilots, and then the airlines have the rush them through a compacted training course to turn them into air line pilots. A training curriculum that focuses on producing air line pilots from the beginning actually sounds like a legitimate idea. Should we be forcing students to study chandelles and lazy 8s, or should they be focusing on instrument skills, engine failures, lost comm procedures, emergency descents, etc...? I think the latter is far more productive.

Completely agree. The current system of primarily training is highly outdated. Chandelles and Lazy Eights are WWII-based maneuvers!

 

[MikeD]

Completely agree. The current system of primarily training is highly outdated. Chandelles and Lazy Eights are WWII-based maneuvers!

How are stick and rudder contact skills of back then, different from today?

 

[Trip7]

How are stick and rudder contact skills of back then, different from today?

You don't need to do Chandelles and Lazy Eights to learn stick and rudder skills. Shoot a couple single engine ILS approaches in a high performance twin and you'll learn stick and rudder skills REAL quick. Do they do these WWII maneuvers in the military?

 

[MikeD]

You don't need to do Chandelles and Lazy Eights to learn stick and rudder skills. Shoot a couple single engine ILS approaches in a high performance twin and you'll learn stick and rudder skills REAL quick. Do they do these WWII maneuvers in the military?

You do know the concept of contact flying don't you? Advanced Handling Characteristics/AHC? Of course this is taught in military UPT....along with cuban-8s, cloverleafs, immelmanns, and loops. These are called contact maneuvers, and they teach a concept called "basic aircraft control". This is the foundation to learning to feel an aircraft, FAR before getting into ILSs and single-engine crap. Nothing has changed with basic flying since the era of the Wright Brothers.

I'm floored you'd even make these comments. I knew pilots were becoming nothing more than systems monkeys/autopilot managers anymore, but I didn't think it this bad.

Without this kind of advanced handling knowledge, Capt's Cronin and Haynes could never have pulled off what they did.

And people are surprised at my comments at how I avoid the regionals like the plague....

 

[Tangodelta29]

You do know the concept of contact flying don't you? Advanced Handling Characteristics/AHC? Of course this is taught in military UPT....along with cuban-8s, cloverleafs, immelmanns, and loops. These are called contact maneuvers, and they teach a concept called "basic aircraft control". This is the foundation to learning to feel an aircraft, FAR before getting into ILSs and single-engine crap. Nothing has changed with basic flying since the era of the Wright Brothers.

I'm floored you'd even make these comments. I knew pilots were becoming nothing more than systems monkeys/autopilot managers anymore, but I didn't think it this bad.

Without this kind of advanced handling knowledge, Capt's Cronin and Haynes could never have pulled off what they did.

And people are surprised at my comments at how I avoid the regionals like the plague....

:yeahthat:

I'm so glad you said this the way you did, makes me feel a little bit better about my future.

 

[derg]

Completely agree. The current system of primarily training is highly outdated. Chandelles and Lazy Eights are WWII-based maneuvers!

Oh lord, I don't.

It's all about division of attention. There are so many glass-jawed pilots that can't divide attention and multi-task, I think we need more manuevers. There are so many guys that can fly the hell out of the airplane thru their index finger but once the autopilot is off you think they're going to kill you. That's unacceptable at a 121 carrier. Absolutely.

Whenever I've had a high profile emergency, it's never been about 'managing systems', it's all about getting the aircraft to the point where you're 1000 AGL, in the box, on speed and configured for an abnormal landing.

Nothing else matters.

I don't think anyone's ever 'saved the bacon' thru FMS and automation smarts.

Perhaps Al Haynes said something about automation and letting the autopilot do all the work for ya, but I must have missed that part.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

You do know the concept of contact flying don't you? Advanced Handling Characteristics/AHC? Of course this is taught in military UPT....along with cuban-8s, cloverleafs, immelmanns, and loops. These are called contact maneuvers, and they teach a concept called "basic aircraft control". This is the foundation to learning to feel an aircraft, FAR before getting into ILSs and single-engine crap. Nothing has changed with basic flying since the era of the Wright Brothers.

I'm floored you'd even make these comments. I knew pilots were becoming nothing more than systems monkeys/autopilot managers anymore, but I didn't think it this bad.

Without this kind of advanced handling knowledge, Capt's Cronin and Haynes could never have pulled off what they did.

And people are surprised at my comments at how I avoid the regionals like the plague....

This is precisely what disappoints me about ERAU learning.... maybe it was better in your and dough's day..... but.... I felt like the school just had the maneuvers "because they were required". Rush rush rush through all your maneuvers, you need to get working on BAI.

If I had the cash, I would drop it in a heart-beat on a taildragger endorsement, and possibly some aerobatics training.... that would be pretty kick-ass.

 

[derg]

This is precisely what disappoints me about ERAU learning.... maybe it was better in your and dough's day..... but.... I felt like the school just had the maneuvers "because they were required". Rush rush rush through all your maneuvers, you need to get working on BAI.

If I had the cash, I would drop it in a heart-beat on a taildragger endorsement, and possibly some aerobatics training.... that would be pretty kick-ass.

Might be a cost thing too. Back 'in the day' a Cessna was $50 (way overpriced for the time) and I think an instructor was $25/hr so we did manuevers until we were ready to vomit.

We spent an inordinate amount of time on BAI in the simulators, but then, well that was the only instrument time we were going to get in PRC. I could fly a Pattern-A/B/C without even looking at the diagram at a certain point.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

Might be a cost thing too. Back 'in the day' a Cessna was $50 (way overpriced for the time) and I think an instructor was $25/hr so we did manuevers until we were ready to vomit.

We spent an inordinate amount of time on BAI in the simulators, but then, well that was the only instrument time we were going to get in PRC. I could fly a Pattern-A/B/C without even looking at the diagram at a certain point.

heh, the patterns, what an odd thing to remember - must have been a nightmare of some sort

Well, I was around during the Part 141 to Part 142 transition the school was doing.... my commercial single engine ground reference maneuvers were refined in a stationary sim for several lessons until I got to fly the real plane... I felt this set me back, as the lack of feel and the 120 degree wrap around visual caused me to do the maneuvers in the sim to see what I should be seeing had I turned my head in the actual plane.

 

[CoffeeIcePapers]

I am torn on that debate. I like Chandelles and Lazy 8's, but Eights on Pylons are pretty worthless, IMO. The problem with going from 0 to hero in 90 days and jumping in the right seat of a jet is that you don't have time to become a pilot.

The most important aspect, decision making, is underdeveloped with this process. When you are told where to fly, when to fly, who to fly with, and what weather conditions you must stay under, it undermines your ability as a pilot. I could teach 99% of the population to shoot an ILS approach (believe me, I have gotten some of the worst 1% through), but that doesn't mean they are good pilots. A monkey could fly a profile if you condition the response properly.

I always tell my students that the flying part is easy, especially when flying something like an ILS. The decision making process (pilot error) is what will kill us.

121 flying shouldn't teach you to be a pilot.

 

[seagull]

You do know the concept of contact flying don't you? Advanced Handling Characteristics/AHC? Of course this is taught in military UPT....along with cuban-8s, cloverleafs, immelmanns, and loops. These are called contact maneuvers, and they teach a concept called "basic aircraft control". This is the foundation to learning to feel an aircraft, FAR before getting into ILSs and single-engine crap. Nothing has changed with basic flying since the era of the Wright Brothers.

I'm floored you'd even make these comments. I knew pilots were becoming nothing more than systems monkeys/autopilot managers anymore, but I didn't think it this bad.

Without this kind of advanced handling knowledge, Capt's Cronin and Haynes could never have pulled off what they did.

And people are surprised at my comments at how I avoid the regionals like the plague....

Exactly.

 

[seagull]

CRJ 700 and 900 have LEDs

Interesting, and that's good, but the rest of the issues still stand. Do they have 30" radar dishes? Just curious.

Regardless, most regional aircraft are not the above two types, so it doesn't make that much difference, and the overall crew experience makes a LOT of difference.

 

[seagull]

I am torn on that debate. I like Chandelles and Lazy 8's, but Eights on Pylons are pretty worthless, IMO. The problem with going from 0 to hero in 90 days and jumping in the right seat of a jet is that you don't have time to become a pilot.

The most important aspect, decision making, is underdeveloped with this process. When you are told where to fly, when to fly, who to fly with, and what weather conditions you must stay under, it undermines your ability as a pilot. I could teach 99% of the population to shoot an ILS approach (believe me, I have gotten some of the worst 1% through), but that doesn't mean they are good pilots. A monkey could fly a profile if you condition the response properly.

I always tell my students that the flying part is easy, especially when flying something like an ILS. The decision making process (pilot error) is what will kill us.

121 flying shouldn't teach you to be a pilot.

I agree, except that those ground reference maneuvers teach more than you might think. Another factor is the time spent around aviation. Military training works to ramp people up fast because it's total immersion, among other factors. Civilian training just is not -- unless the pilot totally immerses themselves on their own. I do strongly believe that there is a fundamental difference between those that totally immerse themselves and continue to do so, and those that do not. You can see it in their abilities.

The other side is having a strong foundation, and you don't get that from a single engine ILS approach (yawn), truly one of the easier maneuvers on a type ride, IMO. You get that from really learning how the aircraft will handle in the full flight regime, having a solid foundation in understanding all the aircraft systems, mixing that with a true understanding of all aspects that go into flight planning and being immersed enough that you have a lot of experience "outside the box".

 

[zmiller4]

When you think about it, it's absolutely true that our current method of training pilots is not geared towards producing professional air line pilots...A training curriculum that focuses on producing air line pilots from the beginning actually sounds like a legitimate idea.

To me, this sounds a lot like Gulfstream marketing.

Should we be forcing students to study chandelles and lazy 8s, or should they be focusing on instrument skills, engine failures, lost comm procedures, emergency descents, etc...? I think the latter is far more productive.

In light of Colgan 3407, it seems to me that we should be going the other way...that maybe if the captain had spent some time instructing rather than in a program that claims to be tailored towards airline flying, proper stall recovery may have been a bit more familiar to him.

 

[Polar742]

What's wrong with actually learning to fly a plane?

 

[SteveC]

I think I'm detecting some common strands of thought from the top of the experience ladder here.

 

[surreal1221]

In light of Colgan 3407, it seems to me that we should be going the other way...that maybe if the captain had spent some time instructing rather than in a program that claims to be tailored towards airline flying, proper stall recovery may have been a bit more familiar to him.

Winnar Winnar Chicken Dinner.

What's wrong with actually learning to fly a plane?

Nothing, thankfully.

A training curriculum that focuses on producing air line pilots from the beginning actually sounds like a legitimate idea. Should we be forcing students to study chandelles and lazy 8s, or should they be focusing on instrument skills, engine failures, lost comm procedures, emergency descents, etc...? I think the latter is far more productive.

Known to unknown

Basic FOI stuff here man. You don't ask a pre-K child to complete an algebraic equation now do you?

I'd consider it pretty irresponsible to toss a person with little actual aviation experience right into a box or airplane flying instrument approaches. But, that gets back to what exactly are these people going to get with an MPL? What? Cross country training? Pilotage and dead reckoning? How are they to really understand turbine engine failures if they never really experienced a piston engine failure and forced landing (or simulation of such)?

Yeah, I don't know. Sure as hell doesn't sound like a safe way to bring people into the profession, for themselves or the people they'll be transporting.

I'm still not entirely sure that I'm a supporter myself. It depends on the implementation. In concept, I could support the idea, though, and that's basically what ALPA said in their resolution. They created a long list of requirements that they believe need to be included in any MPL program, and their support was based upon those elements being included.

Thankfully, we don't have to agree with a study ALPA has concluded if it differs from our personal opinion on the subject matter. Like I said though, I'm interested in actually seeing this study and hearing what the terms / conditions of any MPL program might be. So, whenever you're free, drop me a line.

 

[Ralgha]

Interesting, and that's good, but the rest of the issues still stand. Do they have 30" radar dishes? Just curious.

Regardless, most regional aircraft are not the above two types, so it doesn't make that much difference, and the overall crew experience makes a LOT of difference.

I'd be interested to learn how you think LEDs make such a huge difference, and whether all those DC-9s out there have them too. For that matter, any but the newest airliners.

30" radar dishes? Sure bigger is better, but again, it's not THAT big a deal. If a 30" radar will pick it up and a 24" won't (I don't know how big an RJ's radar is I pulled that out of my rear end), it won't kill you.

So far you haven't made your case for equipment being better at majors.