744driver

I deadheaded on SIA several years ago from LAX to SIN on their non-stop, all-business-class, A34-500 service and spoke to one of the pilots...he said that most pilots and F/A's only do one of those per month because it was so exhausting.

I believe he said that they has 2 CA and 2 FO's (I don't remember if he clarified the kind of FO's on board, whether they were fully-qualified, IRO's, etc).

But very nice service...they really do set the standard.

Readback

SIA is rostered 2+ of those trips per month.

Query? Did you talk to an expat, or a local.

744driver

expat...an Aussie.

trenttdk

At QF we use one Captain, one F/O and two S/Os for flights longer than about 12 hours. S/Os are cruise only and not allowed in seat for T/O or ldg.

KoruPilot

Same thing at Air NZ, so they qualify the FO's with a sort of commandish rating, if you will. It was brought in years ago, short term, to keep costs down. It's been allowed to drag on for ages now with some SO's being in the seat over a decade. New hires by the by are mostly coming from large turbo-prop and sometimes jet commands, so SO is a bit of a misnomer.

SQ has SO's, but they are cadets and as soon as they are qualified, around about the 250 hr total time mark, they are flying and landing the aircraft as junior FO's. I know Air NZ has the SO program as I was one for a few years, CX (thought they are P2X rated, whereas ANZ they are fully command type rated) and QF as well and as I understand it BA.

Great job if you want to retire. Personally I found it great for about 12 months, then very monotonous, then awfull as there was no end in sight (six years later there would still be no end in sight); after a decade I'd be climbing the walls, as I know many are. Everyones skills atrophy, no matter how many sims they gave us. But, that's just my take on it, I do know a guy who's happier than anything.

PILOTGUY

FO's at EK are evaluated on certain items in the left seat, but not type rated.

Gillegan

Not really true. As an FO at EK, you will be type-rated but your license will indicate P2 which means type-rated to act as an FO. If you are "experienced", ie. greater than 2500 hrs. total time (I believe), you will also do a left seat qualification to operate as a relief pilot in the left seat. This consists of a depressurization followed by a rapid descent followed by a TCAS RA - all basically performed by yourself in the LHS.

Perm11FO

Now I realize that I am taking a huge leap here, but bear with me. Flame if you must.

Given the current "status" or rumors from BEA regarding the Air France 447 incident, IF the rumors or "status" are true... where are we going to be when former cadets with MPLs are in the cockpit?

If the information published to date is true, then that flight had two fully qualified FOs in the cockpit while the Capt took his break. Something happens and the reponse by the pilot flying causes a further problem. The other FO, it seems, provides no input to dispute the control inputs by the pilot flying. The Captain ultimately returns, yet the plane seems to stay in a fully stalled condition for the duration of the flight. Granted, with electronic planes a failure that causes insufficient/erratic/incorrect (pick one, two or all three...) can cause the most experienced pilot in that type to stop for a moment.

Now, project an MPL guy or girl sitting there "minding the store." Not only do they get confused, but they don't have any real skills to cope with.

Ultimately, the bottom line is if you have a license to be a pilot, that doesn't necessarily indicate that you have the skills needed to be more than a warm body being used as seat ballast. The airlines are going for the MPL as a means to cut costs, the governments are buying their sales pitch and allowing it. Unfortunately, the paying public has no idea what the MPL brings with it.

The MPL is a bad idea whose time should never come. Any plane nowadays requiring an extra pilot is more than the Cessna 182's and Apaches or Navahos that these folks got their "experience" in. I, for one, don't want one sitting next to me except in a cinema or other non-cockpit seating arrangement.

Typhoonpilot

Umm, okay. But, Emirates doesn't use the MPL concept as yet. The cadets pilots have full comm,inst,multi with a frozen ATPL and around 200-250 hours before coming to the airline for sim training. Sim training consists of over 28 full flight sim sessions plus about 20 fixed based sessions. That is followed by over a year of line training with an instructor in the left seat. By the time they are signed off to fly with a line captain they have close to 600-700 hours in type and 1000 total time. Not that they are very experienced pilots at that stage, but nor are they incompetent.

I do a lot of cadet training and one of the things we train early on is high altitude stalls and stall recovery.

Cadet programs have been around for a long time at many of the world's best airlines. Cathay Pacific, Singapore, South African, etc. Good training and culture are the key. Clearly Air France has a cultural and possibly a training issue based on the number of serious incidents and accidents that they have had over the last few years. Other good airlines have gone through the same thing. Delta in the mid to late 80s. USAir in the early 90s. SWA had a culture of runway overruns in the 2000s. All those airlines made major changes to enhance the level of safety. Air France will need to address their issues, if they haven't already.


Typhoonpilot

KoruPilot

This is getting a bit off topic here, but I'm going to chime in anyway.

After my last sim detail with one of the airlines mentioned by TP above, which is also a long time employer of cadets, we were having a frank discussion regarding safety, the current trend towards higher incidents and the changes in aviation that have affected the way cadets earn their experience. As the checky was also head of safety I decided to, as in previous post sim chats (something I came to enjoy whilst under their employ) bring the subject up. I queried their current cadet scheme and his view of the MCL. Interestingly his opinion, one shared by a number of their TRE's that I ran into there, was that the level of competence and airmanship had diminished in recent time. This has happened specifically since they have stopped flying short haul steam driven jets and shed the last of their turbo-props (the turbo-props many years ago in their case). Without going into detail, thing's are not looking good if we continue down this path of believing the airplanes are fool proof and can be flown safely, under all circumstances (loss of airspeed data which led to loss of LAW protection which is likely buried in a manual somewhere on a shelf, would be an example).

I share their concern.

What really concerns me is that this drive for cheap, "cooky cutter" pilots is being backed by the manufacturers, while at the same time these same manufacturers come out and tell us we should just be better at our jobs when something like the Turkish NG accident occurs. I flew for an airline that was so auto-centric that when the pilots did decide to hand fly they got themselves into deep trouble because a lack of understanding of the FMA's, the automatic systems ("the auto-throttle will save me if it's engaged while I'm hand flying, no matter what" belief) and frankly a scan that is worse than a first day instrument student.

In my opinion, the drive of money is going to kill people. Oxford is just foaming at the bit to get their programs going, and thankfully people like Senator Xenophon in Australia and the US Congress have decided we need a bit more study and information; the travelling public at the moment only seams to be concerned with getting to Majorca for a couple quid.

At any rate, like I said, just a bit of an opinionated rant and the moderator is free to move it as she sees fit. In the meantime I'm being very careful as to who's airplane I rest my but in.