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...

 

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".

 

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

 

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.