NightIP

It's not all about passing training. Stick and rudder, flying ILSs, V1 cuts, etc. checks the box for about 10% of what we do here.

What Atlas really has trouble with is throwing people into international/oceanic world with very little training, expecting line captains to provide OJT. If you're paired up with new-hires fresh off OE, good luck feeling comfortable taking a break on a crossing.

It's not the new-hire's fault, mind you; it's the Atlas training program that skims over so much of the meat and potatoes of what we do here, hoping they'll pick it up once on line. Very unfair for everyone involved, trust me.

Davetastic

Agreed. So what is the remedy? I don't think it is so much the training centers fault per se but rather that we don't have verbiage in our contract that allows for IRO lines for example. It is not that Atlas training "skims" but rather our contract is so hollow Atlas is wiling to take the risk to put green on green pairing wherever that may be. Because our contract is so outdated it doesn't set a mandate to put experience on high risk routes. In other words, our feeble contract doesn't even define "high risk routes".

HercDriver130

That sounds like an OE issue. You cant totally get a guy up to speed on Oceanic procedures and International in general on OE alone but between that and a day in the school house... they should at least be semi prepared.

DC8DRIVER

100% correct !!

Many major airlines have multiple day courses on oceanic flying and/or tailor their training and line bidding for flying in one specific oceanic area. Atlas can sign a pilot off for line flying after only one or two crossings of any ocean which would "qualify" them to cross all oceans.

This process has allegedly led to a Pacific trained crew to cross the Atlantic with no oceanic clearance. This is but one example of the hazards that the shortcuts in the Atlas training regimen bring to both new hires and captains here.

It is NOT a contractual problem.

It is not the unions place or responsibility to create the training syllabus, nor is it the unions responsibility to prevent company regulation violations. If Atlas produces pilots who violate regulations due to training deficiencies, that is a company problem, not a union problem. Typically, if the investigation of an incident finds that the pilot was properly trained, the pilot is held responsible and the union will defend him. But if the training is found to be lacking, the pilot (who may be retrained) would not be held responsible and the company would have to answer for the violation.

Twin Wasp

You could build a NAT LOFT. You could time compress a crossing down to an hour and a half from logging on with Moncton to coasting in with Shannon. Wouldn't even need a full motion sim. I've seen a CPDLC training system where an instructor played ATC and students clicked on a computer screen CDU. The instructor can play ATC to several training stations at once. Have another instructor moving up and down the line to explain as necessary. Pair up students, start a flight every 30 minutes and you could push through a class of 30 in a day.

Not sure when Atlas changed from doing a NAT crossing in OE to just doing an oceanic leg.

Davetastic

This is so far reaching is is ridiculous. The notion that you propose that Atlas "produces" a pilot that violates the FAR's is utter nonsense. A pilot is responsible to know the FAR's. PERIOD.

Nobody is claiming that it is the unions responsibility to create a training syllabus but if the company is paralyzed to make any changes to it's training curriculum without the union screaming bloody murder because it is not CBA compliant or it requires an LOA pursuant to chapter X paragraph Y, what do you expect is going to happen? Atlas will push through within the current framework of the contract any FAR required training.

I am not saying it is the unions "fault" but the union is leveraging every available resource at this moment to force a favorable contract. It is a negotiating tactic. If that means that it won't allow an LOA to institute positive training changes or allow for pay raises or psuedo gateway travel because it my be perceived as "caving", then yes it is a contractual problem. Agreeing with the way our negotiations are progressing is irrelevant because we signed up to be part of this union and this is what our union has decided to do during these negotiations.

Davetastic

We are at least semi prepared with the steps that you mention here. The problem here on this forum is that we have those what will take any sliver of malfunction or failure and pass complete and total blame on Atlas without any regard for putting this into proper perspective, i.e., contractual negotiations drive the vast majority of issues currently plaguing employment at Atlas.

Davetastic

We do have a NAT loft, but it is not just dedicated to NAT. I just did one, but prior to coasting in or coasting out(instructor dependent), we have an emergency event and divert IAW NAT procedures. CPDLC is self explanatory. I think doing more NAT stuff in lieu of CPDLC would be more productive.

742Dash

Even just a set of group table top exercises. In fact that might even be better. A study outline, lecture/training, then a class effort to walk their way through the crossings -- including contingency procedures. This not new, the first steps in route proving are done this way.

Do this for the North Atlantic, South Atlantic, NOPAC and Hawaii. Put the contingency exercises in the less procedurally intense airspace. Two days could have the new hires well up to speed.

Oh wait, the 3rd floor MBA crowd would have to give a crap.

DC8DRIVER

Big ooops, Dave! You have left your company fly open and your management bent is very clearly showing !!!