Multi Crew Pilot Licenses

[surreal1221]

So, why not fix the unstandardized and overly broad flight training system we currently have vs. ushering in a new age of 190-250hr TT applicants flying right seat?

Seems that, instead of fixing the problem, we're quickly creating a much larger one - with many more implications to the profession.

 

[MikeD]

I wonder if the guys in Pinnacle 3701 had ever tried to take a 172 with a student and lots of gas on board to 10,000 on a hot day? If they had, maybe they would have recognized what was happening to their jet up at FL410.

Though not exactly the same, per se; the overall concept of understanding the capabilities and limitations of your particular airframe and how they relate to different flight regimes and conditions; goes back to basic airmanship. As this relates specifically to the CRJ in 3701s case, I would assume this would be taught in ground school at PCL. For whatever reason, and by comments noted on the CVR, it's apparent that the crew of 3701 didn't have a full understanding of the aerodynamic considerations and implications of being at the altitude they were at, and how that affected their particular aircraft performance-wise. The rest of the accident sequence(s) proceeded from that fork in the road. IMO, this could happen to anyone who (again, for whatever reason) lacks the same aforementioned understandings, regardless of their background.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Correction:

They don't sliver through the cracks. . .

They keep writing checks, from mommy and daddy perhaps, to continue their training.

No school is going to turn away money.

More the reason for a maximum number of attempts and checkride failures during the primary training process in the civilian world. What those numbers are, I don't know. But I think we could have a wonderful discussion concerning just that.

For S&Gs, I say no more than two attempts at any checkride prior to one's CFI initial. No more than two failures from Private through CFI Initial. That'll do two things, make sure instructors are honestly ready to send that student for the checkride, and two, makes the student respect the training process and perhaps a nice slice of humble pie when they perhaps may watch their little dream of flying for a living evaporate because they might have to take this process just a little bit more seriously.

Eh, I agree with what you propose, at least partially. I don't think that failures should prevent someone from flying in general, but it should prevent them from flying in the 121/135 environments. I don't care if John Q public fails his private ride twice, and instrument ride once. Just as long as he isn't carrying passengers for hire.

 

[KLB]

Correction:

They don't sliver through the cracks. . .

They keep writing checks, from mommy and daddy perhaps, to continue their training.

No school is going to turn away money.

That's the thing though. I don't blame the schools. A 121 carrier should do a better job of making sure they have the right people sitting up front. Just because they had the finances to obtain a wet commercial shouldn't mean that they can walk right into the cockpit of a jet aircraft carrying 50+ passengers.

I won't even continue the low time vs experience arguement. I'll just say that the interview process and training should be a lot more detailed and strenuous to find the more qualified candidates. An increase in pay to help find said candidates wouldn't hurt either.

 

[BobDDuck]

Marcus, as I've said before... wait until you get to the left seat and you start flying with guys who don't have any experience. It's NOT a skill set thing. After a few trips in the jet most of them can move the thrust levers and bank the airplane. It's an experience thing.

This actually happened last night an illustrates the point nicely.

I flew a full procedure approach into an uncontrolled airport, down to about mins with a thunderstorm trying to beat us to the field. My FO (who has been here for 2+ years and instructed for 4 years before that) was 100% on board with the plan. Our jumpseater (hired in the past 6 months somewhere else) was the product of an academy and had seen exactly ONE full procedure approach during his instrument training. He was hired with a wet commercial (his dad was best friends with a CP or something) so he didn't do any flying after his "training". He never did a full procedure at his airline training and hadn't shot one since coming on line. He didn't exactly argue with us, but he was VERY puzzled as to why we didn't just turn inbound when we hit the NDB and throw everything out to catch the glideslope. The terms "non radar environment" didn't do much to trigger his memory so I let it go.

The whole way over he had been talking about how quickly he had adapted from a Cessna to a jet and how easy it was. I don't doubt him. Flying the thing isn't really that hard when there is a nice flight director to tell you where to go. It's when OTHER stuff starts happening that people with out experience (gained elsewhere) tend to fall apart or just not know enough to do the right thing.

 

[KLB]

Eh, I agree with what you propose, at least partially. I don't think that failures should prevent someone from flying in general, but it should prevent them from flying in the 121/135 environments. I don't care if John Q public fails his private ride twice, and instrument ride once. Just as long as he isn't carrying passengers for hire.

Well I wouldn't go that far. Failures happen. Examiner's have bad days. The FAA frowns upon examiners that haven't failed any students in a certain period of time. Checkride applicants have a bad day and etc... No one can be perfect all of the time. Some of my sharpest students busted checkrides when I was instructing while some of the ones that were not so talented whizzed right through.

A good interview and training process should weed out the bad apples in the 121/135 world though.

 

[surreal1221]

Eh, I agree with what you propose, at least partially. I don't think that failures should prevent someone from flying in general, but it should prevent them from flying in the 121/135 environments. I don't care if John Q public fails his private ride twice, and instrument ride once. Just as long as he isn't carrying passengers for hire.

Very true.

I should have been more clear. But, considering that most of the members on this site - the ones in training - they're not John Q Public who wants to fly on the weekends. They're individuals looking to fly for a living.

I'll do better to put some quantifiers in any future posts.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Very true.

I should have been more clear. But, considering that most of the members on this site - the ones in training - they're not John Q Public who wants to fly on the weekends. They're individuals looking to fly for a living.

I'll do better to put some quantifiers in any future posts.

That's true. I spend too much time on too many boards (from here, to AOPA, to some light sport stuff). Sometimes, its hard to remember exactly where I'm at.

And, if we're going to start limiting failures, something needs done with the DPE system. There needs to be a FAA instituted maximum on what they can charge for checkrides. Is a private checkride, that takes the examiner 3-4 hours really worth $400? Rant Over

 

[surreal1221]

A good interview and training process should weed out the bad apples in the 121/135 world though.

I quoted this post, since well, it pretty much says the same thing as the one above in your response to my post concerning the schools.

Sure, I don't blame the schools. It's capitalism after all - right? hah

Anyway -

Some airlines have tougher interview standards than others. What you're proposing, and I'm not against, is an agreement within the ATA / RAA that "these" are the interview standards you will use.

But, how likely would that happen? Slim to none. The ATA / RAA are not in the business of selecting the well qualified individuals. They're in the business of making sure their members stay in business, through whatever means possible.

So now, how do we go about getting standardized interview processes at all 121/135 companies? What body do we look towards to provide this guidance?

A group that is there to support their member's business ventures and success?

A group that is in place to protect their member's collective ability to a good quality of life?

Or

dare I say it. . .

The Government?

 

[KLB]

I quoted this post, since well, it pretty much says the same thing as the one above in your response to my post concerning the schools.

Sure, I don't blame the schools. It's capitalism after all - right? hah

Anyway -

Some airlines have tougher interview standards than others. What you're proposing, and I'm not against, is an agreement within the ATA / RAA that "these" are the interview standards you will use.

But, how likely would that happen? Slim to none. The ATA / RAA are not in the business of selecting the well qualified individuals. They're in the business of making sure their members stay in business, through whatever means possible.

So now, how do we go about getting standardized interview processes at all 121/135 companies? What body do we look towards to provide this guidance?

A group that is there to support their member's business ventures and success?

A group that is in place to protect their member's collective ability to a good quality of life?

Or

dare I say it. . .

The Government?

You SOCIALIST!

 

[surreal1221]

You SOCIALIST!

 

[derg]

You want to kill Grandma on your death panel!

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

What we need to demand is not higher experience req, but better screening of 121 applicants.

Exactly, which is part of what ALPA's new white paper advocates.

As this relates specifically to the CRJ in 3701s case, I would assume this would be taught in ground school at PCL.

Bad assumption.

IMO, this could happen to anyone who (again, for whatever reason) lacks the same aforementioned understandings, regardless of their background.

Yep. Having 3,000 hours of single engine Cessna time would have done nothing to prevent 3701. I'll again remind everyone that the captain had nearly 6,000 hours, mostly turboprop, and was not a "fast track" or PFT graduate.

Some airlines have tougher interview standards than others. What you're proposing, and I'm not against, is an agreement within the ATA / RAA that "these" are the interview standards you will use.

But, how likely would that happen? Slim to none. The ATA / RAA are not in the business of selecting the well qualified individuals. They're in the business of making sure their members stay in business, through whatever means possible.

So now, how do we go about getting standardized interview processes at all 121/135 companies? What body do we look towards to provide this guidance?

A group that is there to support their member's business ventures and success?

A group that is in place to protect their member's collective ability to a good quality of life?

Or

dare I say it. . .

The Government?

I agree with this 100%. Interview standards are one of my biggest pet peeves. Prior to hiring stopping last year, Delta and UAL were just about the only airlines that were still using a traditional airline pilot interview process that included a lot of technical aspects. Just about every other airline has gone to a "personality-based" or customer service style interview. They are more concerned with whether you'll push a wheelchair for a passenger than they are about whether you understand aircraft performance or IFR procedures. It's a major problem, in my opinion. Even the majors aren't weeding out bad candidates anymore.

 

[Trip7]

In Europe and in the military they have rigourous training programs that put highly qualified caninidates in jets at 250TT. It can be done. If the MPL proves to be just as good as good as the above two, then why not?

 

[Trip7]

Also, the Captain on 3701 was my roomate's instructor at Riddle. Apparently he had character issues and a reputation for doing dangerous manuevers back then as well.

 

[jhugz]

I'll again remind everyone that the captain had nearly 6,000 hours, mostly turboprop, and was not a "fast track" or PFT graduate.

Not an expert on this but I wiki'ed the accident to get a summary of what happened again to refresh the memory and it said that both pilot's came from Gulfstream Academy.

 

[jhugz]

Eh, I agree with what you propose, at least partially. I don't think that failures should prevent someone from flying in general, but it should prevent them from flying in the 121/135 environments. I don't care if John Q public fails his private ride twice, and instrument ride once. Just as long as he isn't carrying passengers for hire.

I went to a FSDO w/ a 95% fail rate on the first try for my CFI checkride. He failed me once on a change in class endorsement and then next time on ground ref being started at 1,200 AGL. I am in no way shape or form cut out to fly a Jet WHEEEE!!

 

[granlistillo]

In Europe and in the military they have rigourous training programs that put highly qualified caninidates in jets at 250TT. It can be done. If the MPL proves to be just as good as good as the above two, then why not?

Can't compare the military. Money is not an issue, and those 250 hrs are all turbine. The syllabus, quality of instructors, screening procedures, ground school, support infrastructure are all apples to oranges.

Back when I went through NFO training, and the same went for pilot training, you get a "down" (unsat flight event) you were in trouble and 2 you were most likely gone.

As far as the JAA goes, the testing and theoretical portion are difficult, but there are ways for just studying the test. That stuff is highly perishable anyway. The guys in the right seat of an airbus 320 are not anymore experienced than any other low time guy in the right seat of barbie jet.

Can it be done, why yes of course it can, but should it?

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

I went to a FSDO w/ a 95% fail rate on the first try for my CFI checkride. He failed me once on a change in class endorsement and then next time on ground ref being started at 1,200 AGL. I am in no way shape or form cut out to fly a Jet WHEEEE!!

Nobody wants one strike and your out. There needs to be some sort of a number of strikes, and your out type deal though. The problem with this strike system, is the differences in failing a checkride in Part 61 and not completing a checkride in a 141/142 environment, where you don't get the pink slip.

 

[MikeD]

Not an expert on this but I wiki'ed the accident to get a summary of what happened again to refresh the memory and it said that both pilot's came from Gulfstream Academy.

I believe only the FO was a Gulfstream graduate. The Capt flew for Gulfstream, but as a Captain on the 1900 following a CFI job as well as an FO job at another regional. Gulfstream had regular pilots flying for it; not everyone was a grad of the Academy there.

Regardless of that, a good focus should be put on the training received for the specific aircraft they were flying, the CRJ. According to the NTSB, pilots received some form of "upset training" at ground school at PCL which covered aerodynamics in some form. Others here with first hand knowledge would definitely know more detail on this than me.