Denti

A claim that is not supported at all by facts, to be honest. Since WWII cadets flying airliners directly after flight school has been the norm in all of europe, especially with all legacy carriers, and many other western countries as well. It is not about boring holes in the sky with a C150 for 1500 hours, it is about the right training from the start. And that was apparently lacking.

NMuir

Keep on repeating that union line... the more times you do, the less people will believe that myth

adebord

Continental Europe barely had airliners to operate before the 1960's. Since 1950, more air seat miles have been flown inside the US than the rest of the world combined. Yet N. America (Canada and Mexico included) has had 88 large fatal accidents while Europe has had 133 in the same time period.


You are in the ballpark of 7x more likely to be involved in an accident in Europe than the U.S.

2StgTurbine

Please share your experience then. I am a current CFI and airline pilot who has been involved in training for years. I was also flying at airlines prior to the 1500 hour rule and had to fly with captains who got hired with 250-500 hours. It showed! There were too many instances of the FO pointing out mistakes that the captain should have found. I was in the jumpseat when on final approach to a runway in winter and IMC, the tower reported a 15 knot tailwind with poor braking action. The captain didn't understand that both the aircraft limitations and the FOM prevented us from landing. This captain was also a check airmen. I don't know what he would have done if an experienced FO wasn't in the right seat.

And their training departments and company policies reflect that. Have you seen the a written test for a JAA pilot certificate? They require a high level of knowledge about advanced aircraft even if you are just going to be flying a Seminole. They actually have a different rank for low time FOs and they spend a couple of years flying with training captains.

I agree. That is why you won't find anyone saying to go bore holes in the sky until you get 1500 hours. Work as a CFI and get proficient in explaining flight maneuvers and recovering from unusual attitudes, get a tail wheel endorsement, take some soaring lessons, get a seaplane rating, fly some solo IFR countries, find some turboprop operator who will let you sit in the right seat, in short, gain experience.


That is true. But in the US, not everyone wants to learn to fly so they can become an airline pilot. Many learn to fly because they only want to fly GA. It would be ridiculous to require a commercial pilot who is only going to be flying a C172 to have the same level of knowledge as a pilot who will be flying a CRJ. They did modify the training for ATP applicants and I think it is a good start.

I know it might be frustrating to have to build time to get an ATP, but how is that different than a commercial certificate? I can get most students to pass commercial checkride by 150 hours, but the FAA won't let them take the ride until they get 250 hours. That might seem absurd, but at 150 hours, those pilots are nothing more than trained monkeys. They are able to regurgitate what has been taught to them, but they don't have enough experience to really understand what it is they are doing.

2StgTurbine

That is not a union line. It is something I have personally experienced.

Do you have 1500 hours? Have you ever flown with a captain who was hired by an airline at 250 hours? Have you ever worked as a CFI? Have you ever had to provide instruction in a turbine aircraft to someone with less than 1500 hours?

kevbo

Like anything you do, you either have the knack or you don't. Flying is not that difficult, just enough so to kill off the really poor operators. Ive had guys that could shoot perfect NDB approaches at 50hrs while some ATPs i know would be dead without an ILS. IQ starts to matter when ever problems mount and the workload increases, training and experience can make up for a lot but not all of it.

Denti

Well, i do fly in europe and have been brought up in that system. So i do have some practical experience in that system. Yes, there are some bad pilots, as there are in systems where you have to have quite a lot more experience to get hired. Incidentally like both Colgan pilots had. We do hire mostly MPL cadets these days, preferably from our own flight school, next in line would be internal applicants from other schools (flying as cabin crew, working in other departments etc.) and after that lufthansa cadets. MPL students usually bring around 100 hours in real aircraft and around 200 in simulators, all of them flying using airline SOPs from the start in a multi-crew environment. The last audit from our partners in oneworld, including auditors from american airlines, showed the same level of safety as our counterparts in the us and elsewhere have.

The first part is true, the written test for the EASA CPL (JAA doesn't exist anymore) is big on theoretical knowledge. The second part is not. There is no extra rank, and they spend around 100 hours flying with a training captain during LIFUS (line flying under supervision), usually 1,5 months on the line. After that they are released with all the rights and options that any FO has, however, they may not be rostered with an inexperienced captain for the the first 150 hours. Other airlines might have extra rules, and i believe that some do have a second officer status that they have for the first 1500 hours of line experience, but that is actually unusual and not done in my country, except for the one airline that hires MPL students directly on the 777.

Indeed, those are very good ideas. However, they are not a requirement for the ATPL.

Well, over here there is no commercial single engine operation to speak of, certainly not in piston powered planes. Multi engine turbine powered commercial operation is usually required by law to be flown in multicrew operation. And for those aiming to fly a C172 a PPL is enough. But yes, one big difference between europe and the US is the fact that the GA market is not a viable route to the airlines for most pilots, both in size and job opportunities. GA is a much much smaller sector.

Oh, personally i couldn't care less, i never even held a CPL, i started out with an ATPL right out of flight school. And my first commercial airplane was the 737. My point was, that current numbers between western european countries and the US do not show a significant difference to support the ATPL (wrongly called the 1500 hour) rule.

adebord

I don't know your circumstances personally, but my limited experience observing in a Irish airline doesn't lead me to agree with you. The stick and rudder skills of European pilots raised in these 'schemes' are non existent. Can they read a checklist and program an FMS? Sure. So can everyone else with a pulse, but that's not what makes a pilot.

I don't know who keeps spouting the 'crash statistics are the same' line, it's not true either.

canuckian

250 hours new grads in a 737

http://m.therecord.com/news-story/7156230-uw-grads-take-to-the-skies-with-sunwing

shoestrings1229

I thought this thread was supposed to about the question of if there's a Canadian pilot shortage....

From my understanding there is. Westjet's goal was to have 100% flow thru from Encore. They're down to near 50% now from their previous 70-75%. They (the Encore side) are needing to hire an addition 250 pilots this year just based on upgrades and retirement/attrition. That doesn't account for the 10 new tails they're getting this year. They (mainline) just recently had a posting for street FOs and Encore has had an open posting for street captains for months now.

Over on the Air Canada side, they're taking pilots from their regional partners much faster than they can replace them. Jazz needs 300 additional pilots this year, and Sky Regional had 130 in their last class alone and again has a posting up for more. just prior to that they had a posting for the E175 street captains which they NEVER do.

Just my two cents