I somehow doubt it will be a true military style program in the US. Cost is too much a factor and that just costs too much. The airlines will do it the cheapest they can without killing "too many" people. How many people is too many will be the question.

 

I have read on this board time and time again that CAs don't want to have to be doing training with paying customers in the back - or they don't want to be bothered with training period.

One thing the military does with those low times pilots is spend an incredible amount of time and money constantly training those new aviators. Where does all that extra training time come from in the airline business?

I could see a use for airline specific training from day one. That could be a very specific training track focused on airline style flying. If the airline can somehow continue the training then I'm sure that competent and safe pilots would emerge ready to be a useful team member.

USMCFLYR

 

I know everyone on this forum is going to flame this but. Embry-Riddle, UND and other aviation universities do exactly this. I am saying nothing about the type of people who go there, or the cost of the program.

 

I see your point to some extent. But most of our "training" in the Herc community was very very mission specific. It was not in instrument flying skills, overwater navigation etc. We DID have local proficiency trainers but that was because when you went out and flew a 4-5 hour local tactical airdrop training mission there was very little time for co-pilot landings or logging your required instrument events. It wasnt so much learning to fly instruments as it was in keeping and honing those skills which might not get alot of use in our normal tactical training cycle. I can tell you when I worked as a wing current operations scheduler ( basically scheduled all of the wings flying for a week at a time ) that training and JAATT missions were doled out based on a squadrons need. ex. A squadron just returned from a 70 day European deployment ..ie. BRAVO SQD, this was basically a rotating deployment amongst conus c-130 squadrons that deployed to Mildenhall England and essentially flew scheduled and unscheduled airlift in Europe and the middle east. Lots of instrument flying and approaches thus that squadron would get very few profiency trainers when they got back as it was expected that the squadron was up to snuff in that area. Course in those days we did our training and checkrides in the actual aircraft so allowances were made for that but I think you see the reasoning.

I do see your point as it relates to continuing training as a young pilot is new in the squadron, and in a fighter squadron I would agree that much of his or her flying would be that way. But in a 130 transport squadron, there was some of that but not tons of it...EXCEPT for airdrop training and tactical airland training.... that was a totally different ball of wax.

Let me clarify something. I do not know how I personally feel about ab-into programs, but I do think they could be effective given the correct training environment.

 

flame away.. but that type of training is NOT the type of training I am speaking of. Again... the student is paying and can continue at will. At risk ( to your career ) training were if you dont perform.. and perform on a specific level at a specific time line or you are gone is the type of training I am speaking of.

 

The difference in military and civilian is $$. Airlines would cut corners to save on cost.

 

I hear you on that one. Like I said... It COULD be done... whether they the money changers at said airlines would allow that is another whole thread.

 

so far the average total time of the thread is 1508.3 and the average ME time 403.3. This is from 24 posts that contain a number under 10,000 for total time and 15 posts that contain 2000 ME time or less.

 

Don't forget that Lufthansa pranged a 'Bus with one of those newbs...and neither Pilot had the skil, judgement, or experience to deal with a strong x-wind.

And I'll even go further and say that the only reason we don't see more of that is because 121 regs make the flying incredibly safe already...

 

pranged...yes... crashed no. In doing some research Lufthansa has exactly TWO accidents in the past 35 years. One in 1974 in which the FE on a 747 failed to open some valves which led to the slats not deploying on take off and causing a stall in which 59 of some 150 occupants were killed. the other an airbus 320 in 1993 which landed with what was called a cross wind but ended up being a tailwind and over ran the runway killing the copilot and one pax. Overall not a bad record compared to many other major carriers.

listen...no reason to break stones over this.... there are certainly pro's and cons to ab into training... and I really have no opinion on whether its used or not... just that it has been used. Pilots with many thousands..even over 10,000 hours have made bonehead mistakes...they are NOT owned only by low time pilots.