Multi Crew Pilot Licenses

KSCessnaDriver said:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem is that no two check rides are the same. I have flown w/ many a pilots that have busted a couple check rides and would have no problem flying w/ them up front. I have flown w/ pilots however without a single bust wondering how I'm not taking the dirt nap while they are behind the controls. The problem is not the initial training it is the training on the 121 side. They need to spend more money in the sim's letting FO's and Capt's see more types of situations and develop more scenario's after they have 1,500 of 91/135 flying. That way they can supplement their real world flying w/ the scenario based flying of MPL and be this crazy thing called a well rounded pilot.
 
MikeD said:
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.
Click to expand...

Correct. Jesse was a CFI, then he went to Trans States for a few years flying Jetstreams, and then he took a direct-entry captain position at GIA when they were hiring street captains around the '99-'00 timeframe. He got a bunch of PIC time there, then left for Pinnacle a year or so after I got there, upgrading in very short order.

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.
Click to expand...

Jet upset training at Pinnacle did not involve high-altitude aerodynamics. It was a one-day course that largely dealt with unusual attitude recovery. It was the same course that AMR was teaching for years that was indirectly blamed for the 2001 A300 crash in NY after the rudder was allegedly used improperly.
 
I'm just a runt, but more experience, better training, and a more selective hiring process all sound like good improvements. Aside from the arguments presented so far, there is something pernicious about a program that only requires 140 hours in the seat (until proven even less is acceptable by the powers that be). Here are three personalities I encountered at a municipal airport FBO (they are not meant to be generalizations of their institutions, just real people I talked to):

1. One instructor had dropped out of college and attended a fast track program because he "just wanted to fly jets." This instructor was pleasant but the instructor seemed to have some bad flying habits as reported by the other instructors.

2. A second group of instructors came from a well-known university aviation program. They came across competent and knowledgeable, but their disappointment at their present position was palpable to anybody who crossed their path. They went to school for four years learning to fly transports across the Atlantic, and here they were mere instructors teaching nobodies in Nowhere, Texas. They "were not using what they had learned."

3. A final group of instructors who seemed to have been around the airport for forever and half, having flown all sorts of things to all sorts of places. Simply put, I learned the most from these guys.

Please do not misunderstand me. I've met some great fast track and university program pilots with great attitudes. But I do think programs that become too jet-centric or airline focused may have a tendency to either put blinders on their pilots or attract people with blinders pre-installed, limiting their appreciation of aviation as a whole. This can lead to a lack of general skill and knowledge as with instructor 1, or to a poor attitude as with instructor group 2. A program that reduces actual flight time to 140 can only make that more pronounced and may on average attract the wrong attitudes.

In contrast, I think we are best served by a competent but diverse pilot group with diverse experiences. I'd like to see pilots who don't just love jets or airliners, but pilots who love the whole damned thing of aviation.
 
Trip7 said:
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?
Click to expand...

That's interesting, because on another board a pilot that flys for a very well respected international carrier consisting of multiple nationalities says that stick and rudder skills are a BIG problem with the non-US guys that came through Ab Initio programs. Basic stuff such as visual approaches and crosswind landings are not performed well at all, according to him. Of course, they can tell you about the intricacies of world weather patterns and the wattage requirements of an ILS, but who freaking cares?

Has anyone here seen what the guys over at PPRUNE think about visual approaches? They act like it's some kind of cowboy maneuver... God forbid one turns off the flight director and looks out the window when doing a visual in a jet. Yes, it is more difficult than an ILS. But it should be a basic skill set for a professional pilot, and not something to get all sweaty palmed over.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Says the guy who's never flown a jet. :rolleyes:



I'm not getting into details on this one again, because it always devolves into a pissing contest on this website, but you simply don't have your facts straight on this case.
Click to expand...

A monkey can fly an airplane. The judgment that keeps you from doing something stupid like flying into a mountain, or running out of gas, is the same judgment that gets you thinking outside the box in an emergency and the same judgment that keeps you alive. You only get judgment from making mistakes. I don't want my crew on the Dash 8 or on the CRJ to be getting their mistake making experience while I'm in the back. The margin of error is inversely proportional to the speed of the aircraft flying for the most part, I'd rather people had more leeway early on.
 
surreal1221 said:
A monkey can fly a sled in Alaska.

Come on pat.
Click to expand...

What I'm trying to say is that anyone can be taught the basic mechanics of going through flows and checklists, following procedures, and even the basics of making sure that you flare at the right height, lower the nose gently, etc. etc. There's nothing magical or secret about a new type of airplane. Anybody can fly a sled in Alaska. Its not the flying that gets people in trouble, per se, its jacked up loads in bad weather when they should have turned around already. In the faster birds (fastest thing I've flown does 250KTAS) its about being out in front of the airplane, and having an extended situational awareness.

There are very very few airplanes that are considered so dangerous to fly that they require some sort of extra training (think Mu-2), or have a reputation. Most airplanes are easy and require no extra mechanical ability to be able to pilot around. Some people have a nack for flying airplanes and take to it very easily, I know I am not in that category and require training, but even then, anyone can fly any airplane with the right training. Its flying it safely that's the key, and the requires something more than just being able to run through the muscle memory of flight.

I've almost killed myself through lack of experience on multiple occasions, most of them happened when I was sub 500TT. Even with a captain to babysit, I don't want that experience getting played out on the flight deck of the airliner I'm riding in.
 
Always a number of quantifiers with you man. . .:)

And, unfortunately, no CFI-Initial for under 5k. Sorry didn't get back to you earlier.
 
wrxpilot said:
That's interesting, because on another board a pilot that flys for a very well respected international carrier consisting of multiple nationalities says that stick and rudder skills are a BIG problem with the non-US guys that came through Ab Initio programs. Basic stuff such as visual approaches and crosswind landings are not performed well at all, according to him.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a typical trip for an RJ captain flying with a relatively new FO who had 1500 hours of CFI time.
 
surreal1221 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would agree to this as long as a statute of limitations exists AND a right to appeal exists.

If you don't meet standards per your guidelines, you should be able to re-apply yourself in say, 12-24 months. Also, the failures need to be legitimate, unlike a good portion of busts in today's "pay to play" environment. I think a follow-up ride with another examiner after your "course failure" is warranted (almost like a 709 ride). In the military, multiple evaluators begin assessing you if you're having trouble. I think this would be much more fair and thorough than the receipt of two individual pinks.

As you stated earlier, I think it would be an IDEAL situation if rigorous and universal hiring processes were implemented. Regardless of someone's primary checkride failure rate(look at all the great legal minds that have failed the Bar), your airline interviews AND probationary year need to serve as the litmus test.


Shoot, look at the way NHL players are selected. They are generally drafted for APTITUDE/POTENTIAL after senior year in high school, MONITORED in college, and selected/not selected thereafter. I know PLENTY of guys who were considered runts in high school, yet became some of the most dependable point-earners in college and NHL rinks.

Personally, I just think there is no way to SUMMARILY evaluate a pilot with under 1,000 hours, unless they are just flat out dangerous (which the "course failure" idea should take care of).
 
surreal1221 said:
Always a number of quantifiers with you man. . .:)

And, unfortunately, no CFI-Initial for under 5k. Sorry didn't get back to you earlier.
Click to expand...

No worries, I've got a place in mind, now I just have to re-take that expired CFI written...damn

Screaming_Emu said:
There are a lot of people here who need to go out and get them some....
Click to expand...

Some what? ;)

surreal1221 said:
Tough to get some when every female (or male) around you is wrapped up in a Columbia Parka, or worse - frozen solid.
Click to expand...

Lol, no worries for me, girlfriend of 4, almost 5 years that I live with. Once you find a keeper up here, you sure as hell don't let her go. If I didn't have someone to come home to every night, there's no way in hell I'd be on JetCareers that much, I'd be out looking for action.
 
This mess could go on forever. Why dont we get a sim somewhere, have a M&G and settle this the old fashion way...
 
Trip7 said:
This mess could go on forever. Why dont we get a sim somewhere, have a M&G and settle this the old fashion way...
Click to expand...

By getting drunk and trying to fly arbitrary profiles while inebriated in the flight safety sim? I'm down!

That being said, there's no way in hell that it would even be a contest, the 500TT RJ FO would fly the pants off of me in the RJ sim. Same with all of the other guys who don't have time in RJs and aren't current in all that jazz. That's not the point. The point is, two guys are trained on an airframe, one guy has 3500TT, the other guy has 500TT. 99times out of 100, I want the guy with 3500TT up front when something goes wrong. That's just me, to each his own. And considering that my perspective is slightly different than yours, thats fine, and I respect your opinion on the matter as your 121 experience is significantly more broad than is mine. That being said, total time counts for something. I'd rather have experience up front. But that's just me. All flight time is good flight time is the old saying right? That means something.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Sounds like a typical trip for an RJ captain flying with a relatively new FO who had 1500 hours of CFI time.
Click to expand...

If somebody has 1500 hrs of CFI time and cannot perform a visual approach and decent crosswind landing, they've been doing something very, very wrong.
 
From ATW:

Source: http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=18026

Tiger Airways, ST Aerospace to bring MPL license to Singapore

<cite>Tuesday September 29, 2009</cite> <script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript"> var era_rc = { ERADomain: 'atwonline.firstlightera.com' }; </script> <script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript" src="http://atwonline.firstlightera.com/era/era_rl.aspx"></script><link rel="stylesheet" href="http://www.atwonline.com/ERA/Custom/ATWOnline/Css/HtmlRelatedLinks.css" type="text/css">
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://atwonline.firstlightera.com/ERALinks/Default.aspx?ContentId=18026&numrequests=1&req1=SSMicrosites%7C%7C4%7CSortBy:Rank&Referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atwonline.com%2Fnews%2Fstory.html%3FstoryID%3D18026&StyleId=0&OutputType=javascript"></script> <link type="text/css" href="http://atwonline.firstlightera.com/era/Custom/ATWOnline/Css/HtmlRelatedLinks.css" rel="stylesheet">
ST Aerospace announced yesterday that its commercial pilot training operation ST Aviation Training Academy has partnered with Singapore-based LCC Tiger Airways for A320 pilot training under STATA's Multi-crew Pilot License curriculum.
STATA was created by ST Aerospace two years ago to respond to projected demand for significant numbers of new pilots in the Asia/Pacific region over the next 20 years (ATWOnline, Sept. 5, 2007).
The MPL program with Tiger will launch with six cadet pilots and last approximately two years, STATA said. Students will undergo ground school in Singapore and flight training in Ballarat, Australia, before returning to Singapore for flight training in a multicrew environment. Last year an Australian subsidiary of STATA acquired the Bruce Hartwig Flying School (ATWOnline, Sept. 1).
STATA said that upon program completion it will "validate the trial in close collaboration with major industry players [including] national aviation authorities, educational institutions, simulation experts and renowned aviation professionals." The six students are expected to graduate together and will receive an MPL issued by the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore.
On successful completion of the course, Tiger will provide the selected trainees with "Conditional Contracts of Employment, subject to the MPL license that will be issued by CAAS, the trainees meeting the carrier's stringent flying standards and the prevalent pilot requirement of the airline."
Click to expand...
 
wrxpilot said:
If somebody has 1500 hrs of CFI time and cannot perform a visual approach and decent crosswind landing, they've been doing something very, very wrong.
Click to expand...

Visual approaches in CRJs are very different then in your King Airs or other light twins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top