Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
Basically, indentured servants with no salable skills work cheap cheap cheap.
FAA to boost Co-pilot training, avoid ATP rule
- Thread starter Two Kings
- Start date
Basically, indentured servants with no salable skills work cheap cheap cheap.
seagull
Well-Known Member
1. The hour requirement for BOTH categories is too low. I would say that 1,000 hours in the focused program with a clearly standardized curriculum in both solid academics in understanding flight theory, systems, IFR procedures, TERPS/PANS-OPS, ATC procedures both FAA and ICAO, regulations, CRM, etc, in an accredited 4 year program that is continually monitored to ensure the accuracy of the programs and academic standards. Military flight training programs would meet this requirement.
2. Non-academic program should be a minimum of 2,000 hours with comprehensive testing required on the above topic areas. These tests would be more in depth than the current ones, including oral exams, and also the requirements for the examiners in both categories would be rigorous to ensure they actually knew this stuff.
Again, this is utterly lacking in GA today. If it were not we would not have inane threads with people claiming lift was "partly Bernoulli and partly Newton" etc.
Dugie8
Well-Known Member
The problem with asking anyone to come up with a program or course of study that is standard is ego (not the thing you eat). Most people don't have the moral fortitude to look past themselves and realise the path they took up through the ranks isn't the only way to go. With the current generation of "leaders" in this industry and those that have self proclaimed their superiority above all others in terms of knowledge and ability we would end up with such a convoluted, bloated and enormous waste of time for a curriculum that people woule be able to tell you the exact lateral limits of the NAT tracks or how many slugs of pressure are present at FL600 but they wouldn't know the first thing about filing a flight plan, calculating performance, what is supposed to be in your AFM or how to fly a simple visual approach without having to build a 5 mile final with a snow flake glide slope.
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
Great post. You succinctly described the point I was driving at, but poorly discussing.
...and I'd have to sprinkle it with what Dougie8 describes too, in order to produce the well-rounded pilot.
Now we can move to saving the environment....:beer:
seagull
Well-Known Member
Actually, in groups such as the CAST working groups, it is vetted through enough filters so this problem is pretty much eliminated. That is less true in the ARAC process, but that process is also far better than what you are describing here.
seagull
Well-Known Member
No, but I have interviewed graduates of those programs.
In any event, it is not going to have the long term immersion that I am talking about. To my knowledge, all of those programs assume a certain amount of base knowledge and skill and are training a specific aircraft. I am not sure what point you are trying to make here, please elaborate?
Dugie8
Well-Known Member
Once you are done with part 61 or part 141 training, besides the military or airlines, 142 schools are where the majority of "professional" pilots get initial and recurrent training. The three big ones being SimCom, Simuflite CAE, Flitesafety. These are basically the kinds of places you are advocating for and seem to think would be with minimum "bs". I will tell you, that is flat wrong.
These places suffer from what I described above. A couple of quick examples. At SimCom for BeechJet initial, the sim was acting weird. We would put in flaps 10 and (the airplane has 10, 20 and 30) with the selection of flaps 10 the sim would accelerate about 20 knots. This happened in level flight, no power changes, auto pilot on. Our instructor, a fellow much like you; experienced, overly confident in his knowledge, etc, proceeded to educate us that of course flaps 10 would result in a dramatic increase in speed because flaps 10 offered more lift than drag...
At Simuflite they are teaching that the 1.6% net climb gradient with OEI is a VFR thing and if the weather is VFR, despite the ODP you only need to meet that 1.6% (part 135 passenger ops). They also teach that SIDs are not for obstacle avoidance and that any climb gradient published is for ATC purposes only and on SIDs if you meet 200'/NM you are fine despite published gradients.
I had to explain to my instructor at my last recurrent what balanced field was.
I am not the only one with these stories/experiences.
My point? The culture that has been cultivated in the aviation industry isn't one of learning and growth, it is more of proving ones self as being superior and knowing more than others, even if that knowledge is wrong, flawed or based on mistruths or misinterpretations of regulations/charts/SOPs/etc. To think that putting that current generation of leaders (I use leaders loosely) is a good idea is foolish at best. These people have entrenched themselves in a way of thinking and doing things that is more about "being right" than it is about "doing right".
Our current system of regulations, procedures, expectations of pilots, and just generally how things work or are supposed to work is so convulted, so mismatched and spread across multiple volumes of texts, locations in those texts and so on that keeping up with all of it is a challenge, keeping up to date on changes is even more.
These places suffer from what I described above. A couple of quick examples. At SimCom for BeechJet initial, the sim was acting weird. We would put in flaps 10 and (the airplane has 10, 20 and 30) with the selection of flaps 10 the sim would accelerate about 20 knots. This happened in level flight, no power changes, auto pilot on. Our instructor, a fellow much like you; experienced, overly confident in his knowledge, etc, proceeded to educate us that of course flaps 10 would result in a dramatic increase in speed because flaps 10 offered more lift than drag...
At Simuflite they are teaching that the 1.6% net climb gradient with OEI is a VFR thing and if the weather is VFR, despite the ODP you only need to meet that 1.6% (part 135 passenger ops). They also teach that SIDs are not for obstacle avoidance and that any climb gradient published is for ATC purposes only and on SIDs if you meet 200'/NM you are fine despite published gradients.
I had to explain to my instructor at my last recurrent what balanced field was.
I am not the only one with these stories/experiences.
My point? The culture that has been cultivated in the aviation industry isn't one of learning and growth, it is more of proving ones self as being superior and knowing more than others, even if that knowledge is wrong, flawed or based on mistruths or misinterpretations of regulations/charts/SOPs/etc. To think that putting that current generation of leaders (I use leaders loosely) is a good idea is foolish at best. These people have entrenched themselves in a way of thinking and doing things that is more about "being right" than it is about "doing right".
Our current system of regulations, procedures, expectations of pilots, and just generally how things work or are supposed to work is so convulted, so mismatched and spread across multiple volumes of texts, locations in those texts and so on that keeping up with all of it is a challenge, keeping up to date on changes is even more.
seagull
Well-Known Member
Actually, I stated I was NOT advocating for those programs (reference my comment above regarding the fact that they do NOT provide the long term immersion that a reduction of hours would require).
I have been less than impressed with the outfits you talk about, although I have not gone through them, the results are dependent on whether the individual had a solid foundation BEFORE attending these programs. What I am talking about is a 4 year program that provides that foundation. You do not need as much flight time if you have that. It is analogous to the ability to maintain equivalent proficiency when working in the office, whether that is union tech safety work or company flight operations. I have seen this confirmed time and time again. You might not be flying as much as a regular line pilot, but you also are not spending your days off thinking about sail boats, instead, it is every day thinking about flying and operational issues.
Cóndor
Well-Known Member
Don't think so. European and Asian airlines put 300-hour FOs on the right seat of their airliners because of the theory and TRAINING that they have provided them from day 1 . . . I would much rather prefer a low-time FO with a sound academic theoretical background who's been drilled in sims before and knows what to do when emergency situations arise, than a 1500-hour CFI who's been only tooling around in a C-172 and spewing out the very-limited theory that's required for FAA private or commercial licenses these days.
The captain of the Colgan Air airliner had 3379 total hours of experience and the FO had 2200 total hours (both above the "minimum experience qualification" of ATP) yet neither of them took the necessary actions to correct the decay in airspeed and impending stall of their airplane . . . their total-time experience qualifications proved to be irrelevant and their lack of proper corrective action (gained from training and drilling in sims) proved to be crucial in this accident.
I do not agree with this proposed policy because it would shift the burden/cost of providing training from the airlines to the aeronautical universities and therefore to their aspiring airline pilot students, who would have to go deeper into debt if they want to land a right-seat airline job sooner. In the end, what needs to happens is that the regional airline training needs to be beefed-up with more theory, sim time, and training so that taking the actions necessary to correct emergencies or unusual situations in bad weather becomes second nature to regional pilots. Capt. Sullenberger's training and drilling on the sim as both student and instructor did more to allow him to react to an emergency situation with a cool head and proper procedures than any "minimum experience qualification" would ever have . . . after all, how often does a pilot get to practice an actual airplane ditching :laff:
Dugie8
Well-Known Member
This is what you are advocating. It will turn into what the current 142 school houses are like. Individual POIs with their own agendas and egos screwing it up. Instructors who are more interested in proving to their clients how smart they are than they are providing quality training (ask me about the ABCDEFGH setup for an emergency descent).
Unless you think there should be one massive campus somewhere in the US where all pilots go to learn to fly and everyone learns from the same core group of 20 instructors who are constantly monitored by the same core group of 5 managers who are constantly monitored by the same single program manager.
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
Isn't it much simpler to just stick with the professional standard of the ATP them all of the metrics for measuring professionalism?
I admired the rule for it's simplicity - no need to reinvent the wheel?
I admired the rule for it's simplicity - no need to reinvent the wheel?
Bumblebee
Commodore
I think there is a lot to be gained from divergent backgrounds. The main issue was really mentioned before and that is ego. Unfortunately, it is not a valued trait when a captain shows a weakness or has a willingness to admit to mistakes. I have watched captains make mistakes or be troubled about a decision they have made that they were unsure of, and yet do not admit to that process. I have had FO's act uncomfortable when I would go through the logic process out loud in the flight deck, having not made a decision yet, and change my mind. We still have the remnants of "The Captain Is Supreme" and must not admit to gaps in knowledge or wrestle with judgment. I think we need to focus more on open and honest communication and not see admission of a lack of clear direction as a weakness, but as a strength. The confidence to be human and to use CRM most effectively means that you must admit when you don't have the answers.
Dugie8
Well-Known Member
seagull
Well-Known Member
Not if it were done right. Maybe sic AFS-900 on them, let them go through the SAI/EPI process and additional audits based on real standards. I do not think the 142 outfits had to go through the ATOS type reviews. An accredited university that had to go through ATOS, ISO 9000, maybe a DOD, IATA and a few other audits, would liely provide the requisite quality control.
This thread has become laughable. The ego's flying around here right now on both sides of this argument are to much for me. I think it's time to take a break. So much I want to say, but it would be wise not to.
P.S. You gotta have hashbrowns, or Cor Beef has with them eggs and bacon!!!
P.S. You gotta have hashbrowns, or Cor Beef has with them eggs and bacon!!!
Can I translate that to mean that you don't have anything substantive to say on the topic? :dunno:
Dugie8
Well-Known Member
Well of course anything done correctly would be good. Do you honestly think a zero to 1000 hour pilot training program could be implemented that would pass all those audits and would be realistically sustainable?
There is no "sic"ing anything on anyone. The FAA as a whole is not interested in keeping its own house in order; how else do you explain the wildly different and laughable 135 rest rules that these POIs are allowed to allow be in place? This isn't something that just sprang up overnight, it is systemic and a leadership problem.
Beurocracy is not the answer, I however don't have a good one either.