I meant no offense to anyone [better stated as everyone] who was trained in a civilian environment. Ditto for those who have spent their entire career as civilian pilots.

My post wasn't meant as an indictment of civilian flying. If this was the case, I would be a hypocrite. My post was an indictment of the trend of minimally experienced pilots finding more and more ways into heavier iron. Even in this sense, my hands aren't entirely clean, as I'm pretty much fresh out of the womb.

By asserting that you've done so much more than just 121 pure jet flying, you're inline with the intent of my post. I assert that the most appropriate way to progress to heavy iron in the civilian world is to put some work into general aviation with gradual increases in responsibility and sophistication of both equipment and the environment.

I'm in agreement with the guy that instructs or pulls a banner, flies night-freight in a recip. or small turboprop, and then moves to a 121 environment. This is the way I was taught things are done. I'm not saying everyone went this exact way or that it is the only way to go, but I think it is a cliche example of the common and accepted means to progress. I think a responsible pilot never lets his or her responsibility outweigh his or her ability to handle it.

If you did it any other way, kudos. I don't have a problem with you. Everyone finds there own path. What I respect is that you have a path, rather than a stumbling leap into the full motion sim right out of a commercial checkride.

This is what leaves me scratching my head, which is cocked to the side: The cat who is going to an initial checkride in the jet with fresh ink from an ab initio commercial or "MPL" training program. I'm not out to crucify these people, but the whole concept leaves me looking something like :confused: or :(.

I was brought up with the idea that the market wouldn't responsibly accept that level of inexperience.

If MPL is what it sounds like from the ICAO FAQ, it really does seem like pretty marginal training. I would venture to guess that these schools will see high attrition rates and students that require a serious degree of additional training. I am not saying that pilots can't be highly skilled fresh out of training...by my own recognition of military training, I acknowledge that very competent people complete undergraduate pilot training with approximately 600 hours (correct me if wrong) of flight time. But let's be real...220 hours and a CRJ transition course? Give me a break.

A senior NWA captain I know once said to me, "You can train a monkey to fly, if you have enough bananas." Might be true...but who wants to work in or feels safer flying in an environment where that's the collective attitude?

I've heard too many funny stories from older cats doing IOE with these guys to respect the notion that the profession itself is augmented by ab initio-to-airline transitions.

I'm too much of a GA advocate to ever want to throw obstacles in the way of a stranger...but I also opine that more often than not, quick-fix/shortcut commercial pilot factories yield an inferior product...at least more often than than traditional career pipelines where one must work up through other jobs just to get to the regional or mainline level. Which would you rather fly with, an MPL graduate, or a guy that was coming off of two years flying single pilot IFR in a 135 outfit? I have a buddy who's a CA at a big regional who's flown with FOs that have never been in clouds before. Give people whatever opportunities you want, but I personally think someone who's never flown in actual before barely has the cred. to take revenue passengers in a light twin...much less a regional jet.

Flame away...but do so knowing that I didn't post to attack people that worked to get where they are...I'm merely ribbing those who just paid to get there.

No way am I going to be suckered into thinking I tried to start some sort of who-is-better than who between civilian and military pilots. And, when did James Bond become so emotional? I always figured 007 for being a little cooler at the controls.

Suggesting that military pilots are better than civilians could not be further from the intent of my post. I have a lot of great friends and co-workers who were only civilian trained - and, without exception, they are solid aviators. I would never be-little their airmanship. However, just as much of a rule, is the sense that their post training/certificate experience is where they became great aviators. The licenses and certificates seem to serve only as a work permit to start really learning/training. I would simply like to see a system whose COMMERCIAL certificates, in and of themselves, mean a whole lot more to both those who earn them and those whose hiring demand them. The best way to do that is by setting standards that fewer (sorry if I hurt some feelings) will be willing to meet. A guy/girl who earns an ATP should want to hang it on the wall like a doctor hangs his credentials. I don't see much of that.

Sultan - so what's your solution for countries such as China, India, etc. where there're very few civilian trained pilots and the military simply doesn't have enough aviators who can transition to the civilian passenger/cargo airlines?

Just like we want people to 'buy American,' purchase products 'Made in USA' etc., they want to have their own pilots so they don't have to rely on foreigners for their own transportation needs.

I’m not saying I am disagreeing with some of your premises but how would you solve their problem?

Also, you said that your post "...was an indictment of the trend of minimally experienced pilots finding more and more ways into heavier iron..." so do you a problem with the military trained pilots too?

Because very often they too go from zero experience to flying very heavy iron in a relatively short time frame; I realize military training is very well designed and that people use sophisticated equipment form the very beginning however, in a way it’s a little like an ab-initio training program where pilots solo in Bonanzas and quickly transition to Airbus/Boeing simulators…

Again, the multi-crew license is not as bad as people think. Those guys/gals will have years and years of 'observing' experience AFTER their training has been completed before they can transition to the co-pilot seat; all this while they keep doing their recurrent and simulator training sessions.

Just my take on it...

Because very often they too go from zero experience to flying very heavy iron in a relatively short time frame; I realize military training is very well designed and that people use sophisticated equipment form the very beginning however, in a way it’s a little like an ab-initio training program where pilots solo in Bonanzas and quickly transition to Airbus/Boeing simulators…

Seriously dude, If you think that soloing in a Bonanza is anything even remotely close graduating from either USAF or USN pilot training - you have no idea what military aviation is about. Soloing in a Bonanza (or similar aircraft) is done as a pre-requisite before even being allowed to start USAF pilot training. Becoming a fully IFR qualified pilot with over 300 jet hours, 200 sim hours, fully aerobatic, fingertip formation, low-level, cross-country IFR navigation,............ and this is just the first year. Nevermind that in order to leave the military, another 8+ year commitment must be served which will include further, much more advanced training, and thousands of hours in command of a jet................. actually, the more I explain this I realize how retarded the comparison is.

I'm out.

You misunderstod my reply but if name calling makes you feel better - go for it maverick.

I don't know enough about the cultures, economies, and problems of any other country to make an informed and fair suggestion of solutions. All I can say is that I can appreciate the fact that a good deal of lucrative jobs available to current American pilots are for overseas carriers; I'm not in a big hurry to fix that. We have enough trouble back home.

Is it fair to say that those issues will resolve themselves as other countries further develop? Back in the day, most American airline pilots were former military. I understand, as you have rightfully indicated, that many foreign militaries don't have the exiting manpower to answer the demand. And that's where outsourcing of skill comes in. I understand the desire to have home-grown airmen, as opposed to corn-fed Americans...but I think that desire is derived from preference rather than necessity.



I also think it's a bit of a stretch to compare ab-initio directly to service training...200 hours of piston time with a CFI versus 600 hours high performance turbine+hundreds of additional hours of mandatory simulator and classroom study.

I'll never try and BS you into thinking that I have answers to anything, but I'll call foul when I think the chosen solutions go to far. The military has proven that solid pilots can be made in 600 hours of experience...BUT, that's a sub-million dollar training program with many hours of additional training and all the applicants were screened with success in mind.

As for the MPL, how does anyone afford to sit in an airline cockpit and observe the cockpit duties for years? Furthermore, do you think merely observing line oriented cockpit duties without hands-on experience is going to make a safer pilot out of a sub-300 hour MPL grad? No sarcasm here, but I just don't see how the entire concept makes any sense...unless you can find some means for getting the grad more stick time in situations where their own decision making and awareness counts, you're still left with very raw and unproven products that lack the qualifications to even fly in the NAS on their own.

I think the entire industry needs overhauled...

Since the regionals act as "Farm teams" for the majors, it would be nice if there was something that could act like a farm team for the regionals. Wait...I've got it! Other jobs! (I kid)...

I guess time will tell how the international community receives and operates with the MPL...I'll certainly be watching.

What no one seems to want to say is this:

The easier, more seamless, faster, and less challenging it becomes to be a pilot with a scheduled air carrier, the less cream will rise to the top. With the increase in bodies eligible to fill the seats, incentives to work the job will be depleted; management will do what they believe makes business sense, and slash incentives. Because the incentives will no longer appeal to the elite, the elite won't fly 121 anymore. This means the high strung, perfectionist attitudes common to the elitist, traditional pilot will be in jeopardy. The less an airman believes he or she has to maximize his or her potential, the less likely they are to do so. The industry will revert to doing what is easiest and cheapest...meeting the bare minimums...PTS. The transition from aviation being a seemingly elite, white collar profession to a blue collar vocation will be complete.

Is it fair to block people from reaching their dreams by placing obstacles in their way? Maybe not. But does the continual slide in standards and required experience add to safety/ability or take away? Is the technology good or reliable enough to allow the game to become "high rise bus driving" without resistance? As I see it, that's the trend.

Am I alone in thinking that the concerns modern day pilots have with ab initio and MPL concepts are that 1) the job will no longer merit any prestige and 2) will be less safe?

Isn't that what no one wants to say? That it's all just a profession tending toward its lowest common denominator?

Where's the balance?

I don't see it as blocking people from reaching their dreams as much as I see it as raising our standards. Dreams will still be realized, it just won't happen at 300 hours.

Excellent post, by the way.

The job carries significant responsibilities putting at risk human life and millions of dollars that can be obliterated in the blink of an eye due to a slight miscue, technical error, judgement lapse, or simple lack of attention to detail. The fact that anyone with enough effort (read money) can buy all the qualifications needed to check the boxes on the application doesn't imply they are up to the task day in, day out spanning a full career. Some people should not drive cars! The military pilot has been through a vetting process the civilian pilot has not. Does that make military pilot A better than civilian pilot B? No. It simply means from the military pool many (but not all) of the less desirable candidates have been eliminated. The pool of civilian trained pilots will contain very capable individuals to the not so capable. The people who do the hiring have to make the call. It's very hard to look someone in the eye and tell them they are not good enough. That's why they send a letter.

As both groups become aware the rewards for the career are evaporating, the most capable among them will find their talents recognized and rewarded in other lines of work.

How poetic it is that an airline calling itself "Pinnacle" would be the first to demonstrate the results who should and who should not be on the flight deck. If you have not read the whole thing, you should.


http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...15X01633&key=1



DCA05MA003

Wow. Wow.

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

(1) the pilots’ unprofessional behavior, deviation from standard operating procedures, and poor airmanship, which resulted in an in-flight emergency from which they were unable to recover, in part because of the pilots’ inadequate training..."


Despite how bad that entire accident report reads, I suppose it highlights the dangers of the unexpected when one takes the opportunity to fly outside of the typical profile.

The average European first officer is better educated than their american counterparts. But on the other hand a comperable average american First Officer is more experienced. Education is no substitute for experience and vice versa. I would love to see the FAA academic requirements at JAA levels. That would definately reduce the number of pilot aspirants and increase the overall quality.

There are much less people considering going into flight school now than 5 or 10 years ago. I would speculate that money vs reward is an issue. Flight training cost are going up while it is a known fact that airline pilot pay and compensation is going down. I could have put a similar effort, money and personal sacrifice into medicine and had my future a lot more ensured.

This then begs the question about how airlines are going to supply there businesses with pilots. Will they except less qualified pilots? Probably. What happens if the cost of flight training becomes overwhelmingly prohibitive? I happen to think its is pretty close to that now.

The answer is the MPL. I was wondering how they were going to do it. This just makes sense (not good sense, but business sense). I do not advocate it. I do not support it. But it looks like it might be coming.

This is EXACTLY why I think the military training program produces better, more experienced aviators. The military ROUTINELY flies "outside of the typical profile." What is an emergency? I definitely believe it falls outside the typical profile. The day to day point A to B flying that we routinely do is very uneventful. The experience is truly required when the ******* hits the fan, so to speak. I would much rather be flying with someone who has flown an entire career on the edge, making split second decisions, in this case, than someone who went to the airlines with 200 hours doing nothing but flying point A to B.

This is not MIL v CIV debate. It's an experience debate. You can make the same argument for the guy who flew the checks at night in crappy IFR, towed banners during the day, flight instructed for hundreds of hours, went on to flying multiple different aircraft in the corporate world, flew for a regional, and then came to the majors.

Ab-initio/MPL programs will never produce a truly experienced pilot.

The worst accidents were the result of complacency, not because soomeone was flying or had to fly outside the typical profile. How about crossing a runway? Ignoring a faulty glide slope when the ATIS says the glide slope is OTS? Punching in a fix on the FMS that guides you into a mountain?

These are the things produce the real tragedies.

Sure there's an element of complacency in that accident...but it was a latent failure in training. Their complacency manifested itself in their inability to properly execute the required emergency procedures, long before they even got to the airport.

Beyond that, I'd say the bulk of this was a series of serious lapses in judgment and active failures. If the NTSB findings were correct, complacency may have been a link in the chain, but it sure wasn't the nail in the coffin. These two guys overdrafted their accounts big time, and they did it with conscious mistakes.

Pilot Shortage
 

For a long time now I have thought that the MPL would be the next likely step in the downfall of our profession.

The regionals proved over the last few years that when times get tuff in the pilot market rather than increase wages and relax working conditions in order to attract more experienced pilots the airlines will choose to lower minimums instead.

In the past pilots needed to rely on skill, knowledge and experience. In the modern flightdeck automation, moving map glass instrumentation and the finest in computer navigation have made it so that experience and ability is not all that necessary. Why put someone through most of what is required to get a traditional commercial license when all they intend to do is to fly for a regional?

Airlines can skip 90% of what is currently trained in primary flight training and solely focus on transport category part 121 airline operations and produce a line ready first officer in just a few hundred hours.

There will never be a pilot shortage because today a new commercial pilot can start filling out applications in just a few months after their first flight lesson.

The world is changing. You had better change with it or get left behind.


Skyhigh

Ab Initio programs suck because they'll let anyone with enough money go through them. The hurdle to jump in order to get your ratings is how much money do you have, and how much time do you have.

The military produces experienced pilots in a short amount of time because these individuals have been screened on multiple levels before they even get an opportunity to strap on a jet. The one's that aren't up to the high standards of military flying, get washed out. It's as simple as that.

In ab initio or most other civilian flight training, those that aren't up to the standard....try and try again, throw more money at it and most will eventually get the rating.

In the military, if you don't cut it, if you aren't good enough, you're done.

The right stuff
 

"this pilot hopes his moment in the spotlight will remind the airlines - and those who fly - that attracting those with the right stuff may make all the difference." Sullenburger

A nice quote however to management "attracting those who can make it through IOE and will work for nothing" is what makes the difference between having a profitable airline and going out of business. If you can't stay afloat under the crush of paying real wages and benefits then all the skill in the world will mean nothing.

Skyhigh

Bottom line, someday the public is going to get what they're paying for.

Wash out
 

Aviation in general use to cut people for being too short, too fat, to female, to old, needing glasses, not from the right family, being married...ect...

Today the general thinking is to let everyone in. Why even people who are handicapped have a shot at being a 121 pilot. Being stupid or inept are just other forms of disabilities to be overcome. Often it takes a large amount of cash and extra training to get through, but if they got the dough then why stop them?

Cash is the great equalizer in aviation. Its all good.

Skyhigh

Paying for?
 

What are they paying for? Over the last five years the industry has seen a flood of extremely low time pilots and aircraft are not exactly falling out of the sky.

The public is paying for the cheapest possible ticket. Pilots are the ones who are willing to show up for the wages that are being offered.

Skyhigh

I use elements of the above point to answer the following quote:

Sky, you are probably right about the labor being the real collective suckers at the entry level. But I listen to what my mentors (Captains) tell me about the whole situation: A lot of the low time newcomers that make it to the line do just fine when flying profiles, but throw something unique or abnormal at them, and they struggle or crumble.

I'm all about marginal changes; how low can the qualifications go before they're dangerous? Have we reached that limit already? Maybe 200 hours and 121 school prepare a pilot for 90% emergencies (arbitrary value blanketing infinite amount of unique scenarios).

But when you do the dishes, the first 90% of crud comes off the plate easily.

It's that last 10%, the toughest margin, that is tough to get off.

I theorize that pilots are, all too often, only prepared for that first 90%...as this is what is legally required and economically feasible based on the current business models and environment.

But experience is what hardens you for the worst of things...that last marginal increment is meant to represent the unexpected, unusual, and most adverse...like a bird strike at less than 2000 AGL that knocks out both engines over densely populated turf. This will probably become the cliche scenario representing that last 10% from the twilight zone.

My thought is that whether a low timer will be able to get the necessary time to handle "that last 10%" by the time he or she upgrades will continue to vary with the individual...But, all other things being equal, I'll put my money on the guy with 2,000 hours of challenging work in the right environment before I look at the same guy with 200 hours, who has never been challenged. At least with 2,000 hours of (respectable) experience he or she is more likely to handle that 10%.

Ceteris paribus, the difference in judgment or skill between a pilot with 10,000 and 12,000 hours may be not be significant or consistent. But the difference between 300 and 800 hours can be huge. Just as the difference between a 10 hour solo student and a private pilot with 60 hours can be monumental.

I do wonder at what point the qualifications are low enough that the time till upgrade is like one long stretch of true on-the-job training. The title is CA right? Not C(fi)A?

This is all just my conjecture...I do enjoy the debate. Cheers.

MPL is an abomination. However, it seems that the airlines would just be setting themselves up for HUGE problems 5-10 years down the line.

MPL's can't ever act as PIC, right? So where are the upgrading left seater's going to come from?

This is a great thread so far-
Sultan, I appreciate your well reasoned points, and those of the others who have posted here too. I'm glad this thread has not deteriorated into another APCF ****ing match.

I agree that there is no substitute for experience, especially PIC experience.
No matter what commercial or military aviation job someone comes to 121 from, there has to be credit given for good PIC skills, and judgement abilities, not just how many hours they've got, or type of equipment they are used to operating. Way too much focus on minimum hours, rather than breadth of experience and judgement skills.

This thread seems to be debating two different things- the declining compensation and QOL for professional aviators, and the required learning and selection process for those who end up in an airliner cockpit.

What I have a problem with, as mentioned in my earlier post, is that the first issue can be addressed by basically changing the standards at the bottom. I'm not sure that is true- I base this on my belief that the system was originally subverted when some commuter and other outfits requiring two pilots started their PFT schemes. When was that? If I remember correctly it was in the 80's? I think there was a lot of talk about these issues then, and how the idea subverted the process of a pilots learning process. I believe what we have to avoid is blaming labor for what is essentially a management problem. I think that many outfits who started the PFT idea used it to supplement their bottom line, while claiming that they were using it as an in house vetting process. Not good. At the same time, it's hard to blame pilots for doing what they felt they had to do to get those jobs. I think this problem lies solely in the laps of management types who allowed it, not the pilots eager to fly.

I think you are right, Sultan, that the idea of using not very well rounded pilots may have consequences in dire situations. I believe that that is the basic crux of the PFT idea that caused so much ire when it started. I just am not sure that it can be corrected easily as some operators have found ways to take advantage of eager labor. This seems to be an incredible problem in many industries, not just aviation.

Not to side with the '200 hour hire' types or anything but think about it... These days who the hell wants to stick with a job that pays very little with no room for advancement and has long hours?



I can go to a school that lets me CFI for 2 or more years afterwards to build time making no money at all only to go to an airline and not make any money for another 4 years...

Or

I can go to an 'ab-initio' school that can get me into the right seat of an airliner with a seniority number and make more money over the next 6 years than someone who spent 2 or more years as a CFI.


I'm sorry but I myself wouldn't want to sit at a job that has no chance for raises or promotions for any longer than I have to. Everyone is a PFJ these days. Colleges can cost more than flight schools... Most Companies require college 'education'. think about it. we created it.

Give CFI's better pay and better (and safer) working conditions and hours, then raise the mins a little bit... Of course F/O's should make at least 40K the first year. Anything less for ANY full time job is an insult. Especialyl when a coffee fetching admin assistant can make more than someone who pilots a highly advanced airliner in a highly advanced environment with peoples lives in their hands...

Mpl
 

Sultan,

The position of First Officer is one of an apprentice. It is unnecessary for them to be ready for command on day one. As you mentioned it could be many years before a new hire could even get a chance at the left seat. The intent is for them to use that time to build experience, knowledge and skill.

There is no evidence that prior experience is necessary for command. The rest of the world largely uses a cadet system of training to fill their ranks. They come to the airline with no experience at all and are trained from day one.

I can see a similar system in the United States wherein companies are permitted to hire cadet zero time pilots and then focus their training solely on transport category part 121. There is no need for airline pilots to learn VFR rules or procedures. The entire program could be streamlined and focused so that by the time a cadet reaches the line they have a deeper understanding of the job and have no bad habits or expectations that are aquired through traditional routes.

My guess is that a focused program could produce a highly trained first officer within 180 hours of total flight experience and most of that time could be in a simulator.

As evidence to support my position I offer the events of last month when Captain Sullenberger landed in the Hudson. It was the first officers leg. He was 49 years old and highly experienced. Soon after hitting the birds Sullenburger took command of the controls from the FO and continued to make the radio calls as well. The FO was left to sit there holding a check list. He probably could have done the same job as Sully but when the chips are down it is the captains plane. A low time FO can read a checklist just as good as a salty one. The job of problem solving belongs to the captain.

It would be nice to have two Sullenbergers in every flight deck however we can get by with much less.

Skyhigh

Good call. That's just what the airline industry needs...cadet first officers good enough to just "get by". In fact, all health and safety critical professions like say...medicine could take a cue from you by dumbing down standards and training, open up the career field to prospective cadets with a 2.0 GPA or less living in their parents' basements, trained at the community college in a very narrow range of medicine like the MPL pilots so we could "get by with much less" and pay them a fraction of the "real" doctors who could be called in when the patient flatlined or stroked out at the hands of the cadet-doctor trained to write scripts and diagnose off the gouge from www.WebMD.com Your idea could be put into a slogan for a company, a sports team, a branch of the armed forces or a country for that matter: "Good enough to get by".

Not my idea of a good outcome
 

If it were up to me we all would have great jobs and they would be handed out solely on merit. In the airlines you only have to be good enough. If management can figure out how to lower the bar then they will. My guess is that in the near future the MPL will be the next step in reducing our profession.

Skyhigh

Medicine
 

I would also like to add that medicine does have its versions of lessor paid and experienced doctors. They are called nurses, physicians assistants and resident doctors in training. They all work under the supervision of an experienced and qualified medical doctor but at a much lower price.

Skyhigh

Huh? Wrong, they can once they've upgraded to captain.

Of course you're in no hurry top fix that because you "...appreciate the fact that a good deal of lucrative jobs available to current American pilots..."

Sure, it sounds good to me too because it gives me more options, however I asked you to put yourself in 'their' shoes, not your own.

Like I said, we are all quick to point a finger at them but the fact is they have to do something to create jobs for their own citizens. Outsourcing those jobs to foreign pilots only works when there are furloughs in the western henmisphere; as soon as the economies turn around they all end up going back to their American, Canadian, Australians, etc. airline jobs. It's been proven over and over again. That's not sustainable so they had to do something.

Huh?! There WAS a first oficer on that plane??? :eek:

A valid point, but there are a few points that I believe to deserve consideration. Your comparison of medical residency is probably less comparable to the position of first officer than it is to any pilot during IOE. Once a doctor completes residency, generally speaking, he or she is a full fledged physician. Doctors don't revert to being residents or interns due to seniority, economic factors. Pilots do (revert to first officer positions). I'm not even sure that a Doctor reverts to being a resident in the case of a change in specialty. Don't know...

The moral of the above story that I'm trying to get to is this:

First Officers exist, first and foremost, because we recognize that it isn't safe, reasonable, or effective for one pilot to have to manage potential heavy workloads and long duty periods alone. We give the Captain more authority because democratic decisions can't be made in a machine moving toward potential disaster near the speed of sound. Someone has to be able to make a snap decision; there isn't always time for a committee. In a good CRM environment, we recognize that a First Officer's voice should be heard...he or she is also there as a consiglieri of sorts. That being said, when you're operating a machine with that much speed, energy, complexity, and cost, decisions ultimately come to one person.

Where am I going with this?

Well in the situation of practicing doctors and residents, the practicing physicians are, to my knowledge, always more experienced than the residents working under them. This is not always the case with pilots. A less experienced Captain may fly with a more experienced first officer based on economic factors. A person could also be a Captain for years and become an FO because of a change of airframe. A more experienced pilot could be sitting right seat to a greener airman simply due to company seniority alone. A Mesaba pilot may upgrade to Captain in the Saab after spending his or her entire tenure in the CRJ. The first officers he or she flies with will undoubtedly have more experience on airframe, and in some cases, in the air in general! That individual is not a Captain to be a mentor, at least not by logic...that person is a Captain because they were hired first...and someone has to call the shots. In these cases, the FO is better suited as an adviser than the Captain is as a teacher.

The moral is, practicing physicians are masters, and residents are apprentices. Period.

The same is not always true for pilots...and I use this as indirect evidence to support my opinion that the cockpit of an airliner is somewhat less appropriate for on-the-job training than an operating room. I recognize that the First Officer position is used to get experience before many upgrade to Captain.

But a modern first officer can fly other aircraft as pilot in command, just not necessarily for their airline or under part 121. FOs may even be PIC typed on their respective airframe...and may only be an FO because they were displaced. A resident, however, cannot practice medicine as a doctor outside of the hospital where they are working/training. Without the residency, said doctor is a waste of thousands of dollars of training...at least as far as I understand...please correct me if I'm wrong.

Bottom line: A resident is an apprentice...

Apprentice defined: a person who works for another in order to learn a trade.

A First officer is a cut above, as he or she is competent to perform their craft. An FO is a journeyman...

Journeyman defined: a craftsman. a skilled worker who practices some trade or handicraft.

The important distinction is that the apprentice is not qualified to work in the craft without training and guidance. A journeyman is qualified to work in the craft but is not recognized as master. The master (Captain in this case), is recognized for having the highest level of skill, authority, and (only in the cases of true working trades) more experience.

Sky, neither of us may have a truly accurate depiction of the appropriate level of learning and skill associated with the FO position. I'm nitpicking because I think apprentice is a somewhat less accurate way of looking at it. The skill level is reputed to be a bit higher IMHO.

In my understanding, the training equivalent to an apprenticeship begins when you first start flying. If you are a crew member responsible for lives, One might expect you to be at least a journeyman of your craft...at least someone who is licensed and reputed to already be capable of your craft...even if you're not a master.

I apologize, as I am nitpicking, but hey...it's a forum...it's all in good fun.

Beyond this difference in perspective, I also recognize that medical doctors sporadically face situations requiring split second decision making and procedures. More often than not, residents can be afforded more time for task completion and more patience. With the exception of the high paced ER, triage scenarios, residents have more guidance, with less pressure to get it done right now.

Pilots don't have the same luxury. If the FO can't do it at full speed, he or she can't do it at all. You can't be going through the motions in professional flying. You can be a gear puller...but gear pulling alone won't make a solid pilot with safe, sound skills.

One final point, if the doctor and his or her intern truly screw up, you might bury one person.

If a crew, including an apprentice or journeyman FO screws up, you could be burying hundreds of people. Maybe more.

Okay...catching a breath.

Here I concede that you have a point. That being said, I understand from what you have said, that desperation exists and why. But that doesn't mean we can praise any solution. It may be easier, but it isn't necessarily best. Again, just more conjecture from yours truly, the time building chotch.

Sky - you know me as a person who has collected infraction over infraction from frequenting the "Leaving the Career" section of this forum.
This is the first time I have seen eye to eye with you and get to see that you represent more than being upset. I agree with you on too many of your above statements to list here. I also have no "earned right" to frequent the "Major" forum because I have never walked a mile or yard in a 121 Captains shoes and never ever will. I just grew up around the people who did and saw first hand how a profession has been turned into a trashcan.

MPL is not really the issue in my opinion. What kind of a joke it has developed into is the real issue and how we as pilots and the industry and employer of such pilots have accepted it to become a standard.

We have accepted minor skill and experience into the cockpit. The old school captains sat there like cattle, doing nothing about it. If I go to med school, can I perform brain surgery a week after I get out? If I go to law school, can I take on Phillip Morris a week after I get out? If I become a car mechanic at a local community college, can I go out and fix a Porsche?

Let me think.... ahhh, let me think some more.... No! Absolutely NOT!
The guy that fixes my Porsche has grey hair and I pay him dearly for 40 years experience... You have no right to touch it, I'd rather pay 150/ hour and have it done right, than 20/hour to have my doors fall off at 120MPH...
All it takes to earn the epaulets and the wings is 50.000 dollars, a loan or rich parents. Effort: 3 months. ZERO to HERO in 250 Hours, no Instruction involved. The airlines need a seat kept warm, so, here is a shot, youngster, and $20.000/ year should be fine, right? What? No? But we have to teach you how to fly now... well better take it, there is another guy with 7 hours more and he'll love the job. It's become a job, not a career.

From what I see when looking at new vs. old generation pilots is a terrible imbalance. Value and Price are no longer in check. A good brain surgeon t costs what? A Million a year? If I walked into the operating room tomorrow and said: "Let me try it, teach me as I go along" would they pay me that much too? Now flying a plane requires much less skill and talent than operating on a human beings brain. When we screw up, the gear is bent.
When a Doctor screws up, there is someone walking around drooling heavily for the rest of his/ her life. Doctors have done nothing but to look out that their profession does not go to the cheapest bidder. The hospitals can simply not take the risk to hire someone off the street.
Airlines do! The mob wants to travel cheap too!

We need to get motivation and integrity back into our own ranks. Then, and I'm afraid only then will things change. For us pilots, we could maybe start seeing this profession as a "Career" again, not as a "Job".
Chewing gum in a cockpit may be cool by H.S. standards, but it really isn't.
We have allowed high school kids into the cockpit of the most expensive airplanes carrying hundreds of people. Now, we are reaping the rewards.

Don't complain, change it.
If you notice you can't change it, get out and do something with your life.
(For heavens sakem, DO!!! A plumber apprentice makes more money!)
We need the gray haired captains and old school people to beat some common sense into the youngsters. But, they won't care. Sully makes 300K/ year either if he flies with Skiles (equal times and a lot more style than so many of his peers) or with John Doe, who had 50K and was admitted to a learning seat. Unless Sully cares and speaks up, nothing will happen. Our pilot community is as divided as our country. Being divided has brought our country into the gutter. Unite, keep the stupid unions away, and start to collect people in the field, willing to see your point and stand up for your cause. Pressure the airlines to provide you with quality pilots again, for the right seat. Don't fly, if they won't. Sounds stupid easy, but I bet money it would work. Pilots know what Pilots need. Make it happen.
Nobody else can or will or wants to fix it. Stand up for your peers and learn that you cant have the pot without putting a dime in yourself.

Rant off, and Mods don't send any more infractions, my PM box is full already. :(

I doubt Sully makes 300K/year.

According to APC numbers if he only flies the monthly guarantee he should be getting $108,000/year. :eek:

If somehow he's getting the highest USAirways rate which is for the A330 he should be making $138,240/year.
Of course, this does not include flying over guarantee, trip rigs, open time, etc, etc.

The FO should be getting $73,440/year as he's been there for years and is getting the max A320 FO pay rate which is $85/hour.

Hope I got all the numbers right...

A320 captain max guarantee pay = $108,000/year ($125 * 72 hours/month guarantee)
A330 captain max guarantee pay = $138,240/year ($160 * 72 hours/month guarantee)

A320 FO max guarantee pay = $73,440/year ($85 * 72 hours/month guarantee)

Presumed skills
 

I have never seen the connection of 1000 hours of touch and goes in a 172 to being a better airline pilot. The rules, procedures and flight operations are totally different in part 121 transport category flying from piston VFR.

If a new FO can make it through ground school, the simulator and IOE then they are good enough. If the FAA or management thought that more was necessary then they would have made regulations to reflect that. Why then can't a shortened program be created to provide cadet pilots with what they need and nothing more?

The last two and a half years of airline flying have seen the lowest flight time career entrants and also has been the most safe. There is no connection to first officer experience beyond the minimums and added safety. Why would any airline pay more to get pilots with more experience?

There is no incentive for airlines to pay more. The job is getting easier thanks to automation. Management knows that they can hire wonder kids who are willing do it for free. Unions are in full retreat. The gene is out of the bottle. I wish things were different. We can't fix this.

Skyhigh

Sky,

I never really said 1000 touch and goes in a 172; I meant to suggest that some experience is better other kinds in the above quote. Regardless, you have adequately qualified the notion that not all experience is equal in value. But even useless experience can be a confidence builder. We can argue all day about the validity of hours and experience till the cows come home. I still hold to my point about the "10%" of flying problems people can't prepare for or aren't exposed to during training.

But, you are undoubtedly right about the management perspective. As for professional pilots being unable to reverse current trends, you may be right there as well. I sincerely hope you're wrong though. Intensely.

The one thing that keeps my spirits high, is that GA is still here for the time being. Which brings me to another question: with future pro pilots being mass produced in MPL/AbIn programs, who will carry the torch for GA?

No matter where I wind up, I hasten to say that I cling to my bug smashin' roots.

Sky,

I never really said 1000 touch and goes in a 172; I meant to suggest that some experience is better other kinds in the above quote. Regardless, you have adequately qualified the notion that not all experience is equal in value. But even useless experience can be a confidence builder. We can argue about the validity of hours and experience till the cows come home. I still hold to my point about the "10%" of flying problems people can't prepare for or aren't exposed to during training.

But, you are undoubtedly right about the management perspective. As for professional pilots being unable to reverse current trends, you may be right there as well. I sincerely hope you're wrong though. Intensely.

The one thing that keeps my spirits high, is that GA is still pretty exciting (however imperfect) for the time being. Which brings me to another question: with future pro pilots being mass produced in MPL/AbIn programs, who will carry the torch for GA?

No matter where I wind up, I hasten to say that I cling to my bug smashin' roots.

CareerCFI, with a name like this, and your intended inclusion of being that of a non-CA ( with no hopes of ever being one in the 121 Field ) Who are you to make such bold statements about thousands of pilots you've never/will never fly with ? What kind of a man sits back at the computer and throws such disparaging remarks about the state of the industry, when even Skyhigh is of the belief that if you can get through training/IOE you deserve to be there. I feel ashamed to call you a brethern at this point and I can only hope you're not making some convoluted connection to what happened in BUF last night to the state of the industry. As stated multiple times by almost everyone on this forum, we're all here to do a job and to do it safely. There is no need for Grey Hairs to ' beat the sense into us ' and tell us not to chew gum in the cockpit. It is no ones fault that the state of the industry is such as it was whenever a pilot gets hired, and no one should be put under scrutiny because of this. When airlines hire, they hire, you jump on if/when you can. For someone to say that the level of what a PAX is getting for the same price of a ticket is less now than it was before, is pig-headed at best, and I only hope some day you wake up from such a dillusion of the mind.

Too many great posts here to quote them all. So I will feebly attempt to remember what was said.

Perhaps management thinks this is the best way to fill seats. Perhaps also, some of us will choose this route to an airline career.

The bottom line is we control what we choose to do. If we choose to go the abinit route, then we have further condemned this profession.

To bolster the Sultans point, Good judgment comes from experience, experience comes from bad judgment. Neither comes from abinit training.