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 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.