Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
OA940
Topic Author
Posts: 1990
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Interesting article regarding pilot training

Sat Aug 26, 2017 5:42 pm

http://airlinegeeks.com/2017/08/21/opin ... ng-pilots/

Imo this guy/gal has nailed it. Pilot training is incredibly expensive, and that costs countless pilots their jobs. Airlines should help aspiring pilots. And in the end you can't have massive expansion without massive amounts of pilots.
A350/CSeries = bae
 
RL757PVD
Posts: 3193
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 1999 2:47 am

Re: Interesting article regarding pilot training

Sat Aug 26, 2017 5:50 pm

I don't think airlines really want to, a limited supply of pilots means they can further reduce capacity or upguage to increase efficiency and make greater profits.

There is very little incentive for airlines in help increase the supply of pilots and thats the sad truth for anyone that isn't an airline shareholder.
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
 
PDX757
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:06 am

Re: Interesting article regarding pilot training

Sat Aug 26, 2017 6:13 pm

The defacto first pilot job for most seems to be as a flight instructor. A lot of instructors I had during my training were only there to build hours before they moved on to the regionals. I had a few instructors that were excellent and I made sure to stay with them as long as I could. There were also a lot of duds that had no business providing instruction.

Airlines in the US not paying for training has been the norm. It's a very large investment to make on an asset that may or may not stay at the airline, or even complete the training for that matter. This isn't too dissimilar from what's going on in the larger labor market. Employers are not nearly as keen to provide extensive training as they once were. Spending an entire working life with only one or two employers is all but a thing of the past.
 
b747400erf
Posts: 3165
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:33 am

Re: Interesting article regarding pilot training

Sat Aug 26, 2017 6:52 pm

A CFI has little training and almost no life experience themself. For them to be the most impressionable person in training a new pilot I have always felt is very backwards. Cadet programs are the best because you learn from real professionals who have thousands of hours experience flying paying passengers. Young pilots like CFI's pick up bad habits and do not do many things the correct way. My feelings have been that retired pilots should be the main CFI's for those that cannot get into or afford cadet programs. Young pilots should not become CFI's but relief officers or first officers of small cargo or corporate outfits on airplanes that could be certified single pilot but insurance requires a first officer. This is in a perfect world though.
 
PDX757
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:06 am

Re: Interesting article regarding pilot training

Sat Aug 26, 2017 7:20 pm

b747400erf wrote:
A CFI has little training and almost no life experience themself. For them to be the most impressionable person in training a new pilot I have always felt is very backwards. Cadet programs are the best because you learn from real professionals who have thousands of hours experience flying paying passengers. Young pilots like CFI's pick up bad habits and do not do many things the correct way. My feelings have been that retired pilots should be the main CFI's for those that cannot get into or afford cadet programs. Young pilots should not become CFI's but relief officers or first officers of small cargo or corporate outfits on airplanes that could be certified single pilot but insurance requires a first officer. This is in a perfect world though.


A perfect world indeed. The upside of CFId being out to build hours is that there are plenty of them to go around. Generally speaking, retiring captains may not be as interested to do that.
 
b747400erf
Posts: 3165
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:33 am

Re: Interesting article regarding pilot training

Sat Aug 26, 2017 7:55 pm

PDX757 wrote:
b747400erf wrote:
A CFI has little training and almost no life experience themself. For them to be the most impressionable person in training a new pilot I have always felt is very backwards. Cadet programs are the best because you learn from real professionals who have thousands of hours experience flying paying passengers. Young pilots like CFI's pick up bad habits and do not do many things the correct way. My feelings have been that retired pilots should be the main CFI's for those that cannot get into or afford cadet programs. Young pilots should not become CFI's but relief officers or first officers of small cargo or corporate outfits on airplanes that could be certified single pilot but insurance requires a first officer. This is in a perfect world though.


A perfect world indeed. The upside of CFId being out to build hours is that there are plenty of them to go around. Generally speaking, retiring captains may not be as interested to do that.

I don't have polling to back this up but my feeling is that many pilots that retire are happy to leave the exhausting lifestyle of flying and being away from their family, but miss the flying part. It could be part of their pensions to do X number of hours at training centres setup and partly funded by the airlines. But yes, a perfect world.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20014
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Interesting article regarding pilot training

Sun Aug 27, 2017 2:30 am

b747400erf wrote:
A CFI has little training and almost no life experience themself. For them to be the most impressionable person in training a new pilot I have always felt is very backwards. Cadet programs are the best because you learn from real professionals who have thousands of hours experience flying paying passengers. Young pilots like CFI's pick up bad habits and do not do many things the correct way. My feelings have been that retired pilots should be the main CFI's for those that cannot get into or afford cadet programs. Young pilots should not become CFI's but relief officers or first officers of small cargo or corporate outfits on airplanes that could be certified single pilot but insurance requires a first officer. This is in a perfect world though.


Which cadet programs have real professionals with thousands of hours of experience flying paying passengers as instructors during the flying phases? Certainly not the case at the schools used by airlines that I know of. The flight instructor mix there seems by and large to be the same as at any other flight school. A majority of youngsters building hours towards an airline job, with a small proportion of older, more experienced staff.

If you're moving to the airlines, I don't think it matters that much. The flying phases in light props are there to teach the basics and to tick the licensing boxes, not how to operate an airliner. You learn to fly airliners in the multi-crew phases, and that's where the hiring airline really pays attention to your performance. Fittingly, the instructors in that phases tend to indeed be retired airline pilots.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4455
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Interesting article regarding pilot training

Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:45 pm

Disagree, airlines shouldn't help newcomers like that. I might just be a selfish fart, but I and a thousands of others invested fortunes already and are in massive debt. There is no reason why somebody else should just cut inside of us to get the good jobs.

Starlionblue wrote:
b747400erf wrote:
A CFI has little training and almost no life experience themself. For them to be the most impressionable person in training a new pilot I have always felt is very backwards. Cadet programs are the best because you learn from real professionals who have thousands of hours experience flying paying passengers. Young pilots like CFI's pick up bad habits and do not do many things the correct way. My feelings have been that retired pilots should be the main CFI's for those that cannot get into or afford cadet programs. Young pilots should not become CFI's but relief officers or first officers of small cargo or corporate outfits on airplanes that could be certified single pilot but insurance requires a first officer. This is in a perfect world though.


Which cadet programs have real professionals with thousands of hours of experience flying paying passengers as instructors during the flying phases? Certainly not the case at the schools used by airlines that I know of. The flight instructor mix there seems by and large to be the same as at any other flight school. A majority of youngsters building hours towards an airline job, with a small proportion of older, more experienced staff.

If you're moving to the airlines, I don't think it matters that much. The flying phases in light props are there to teach the basics and to tick the licensing boxes, not how to operate an airliner. You learn to fly airliners in the multi-crew phases, and that's where the hiring airline really pays attention to your performance. Fittingly, the instructors in that phases tend to indeed be retired airline pilots.


I found that flying IFR in a multi-crew environment was a completely different world from anything even remotely related to the G/A world. IMHO, felt more like a bunch of paperwork that had to be ticked off rather than actually learning anything. Honestly, the flying school stuff could have been cut down from around 150 to just 25-50 hours with a really good experienced instructor, with the rest of the training being plowed into multi-crew training on simulators and on the line in an airline (not necessarily flying the aircraft from the get-go, just jumpseating on a few commercial flights or helping dispatch a flight would teach you tons). G/A flying is very overrated when it comes to flying an actual airliner, and very expensive.

As for experienced vs inexperienced instructors, I learned far more on the few flights (probably less than 10) with some really experienced old captains as my instructor than I did with the rest of my young-inexperienced-hour building FIs combined. I found most of the young ones pretty incompetent, and luckily flew with a pretty talented co-student for most of my flights, so we could always debrief each other on the drive home after the flight. On one flight I managed to get unestablished during approach, and the instructor never even noticed it, focusing during the briefing on some non-issue that I was 100% certain that I never did... :pessimist: In hindsight, I am pretty sure that my CFI (chief flying instructor) wouldn't even make the grade at the airline I work at, a career FI who never saw the inside of an aircraft bigger than a PA-34.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20014
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Interesting article regarding pilot training

Thu Aug 31, 2017 9:14 am

VSMUT wrote:
Disagree, airlines shouldn't help newcomers like that. I might just be a selfish fart, but I and a thousands of others invested fortunes already and are in massive debt. There is no reason why somebody else should just cut inside of us to get the good jobs.

Starlionblue wrote:
b747400erf wrote:
A CFI has little training and almost no life experience themself. For them to be the most impressionable person in training a new pilot I have always felt is very backwards. Cadet programs are the best because you learn from real professionals who have thousands of hours experience flying paying passengers. Young pilots like CFI's pick up bad habits and do not do many things the correct way. My feelings have been that retired pilots should be the main CFI's for those that cannot get into or afford cadet programs. Young pilots should not become CFI's but relief officers or first officers of small cargo or corporate outfits on airplanes that could be certified single pilot but insurance requires a first officer. This is in a perfect world though.


Which cadet programs have real professionals with thousands of hours of experience flying paying passengers as instructors during the flying phases? Certainly not the case at the schools used by airlines that I know of. The flight instructor mix there seems by and large to be the same as at any other flight school. A majority of youngsters building hours towards an airline job, with a small proportion of older, more experienced staff.

If you're moving to the airlines, I don't think it matters that much. The flying phases in light props are there to teach the basics and to tick the licensing boxes, not how to operate an airliner. You learn to fly airliners in the multi-crew phases, and that's where the hiring airline really pays attention to your performance. Fittingly, the instructors in that phases tend to indeed be retired airline pilots.


I found that flying IFR in a multi-crew environment was a completely different world from anything even remotely related to the G/A world. IMHO, felt more like a bunch of paperwork that had to be ticked off rather than actually learning anything. Honestly, the flying school stuff could have been cut down from around 150 to just 25-50 hours with a really good experienced instructor, with the rest of the training being plowed into multi-crew training on simulators and on the line in an airline (not necessarily flying the aircraft from the get-go, just jumpseating on a few commercial flights or helping dispatch a flight would teach you tons). G/A flying is very overrated when it comes to flying an actual airliner, and very expensive.

As for experienced vs inexperienced instructors, I learned far more on the few flights (probably less than 10) with some really experienced old captains as my instructor than I did with the rest of my young-inexperienced-hour building FIs combined. I found most of the young ones pretty incompetent, and luckily flew with a pretty talented co-student for most of my flights, so we could always debrief each other on the drive home after the flight. On one flight I managed to get unestablished during approach, and the instructor never even noticed it, focusing during the briefing on some non-issue that I was 100% certain that I never did... :pessimist: In hindsight, I am pretty sure that my CFI (chief flying instructor) wouldn't even make the grade at the airline I work at, a career FI who never saw the inside of an aircraft bigger than a PA-34.


Supply and demand. In places like Singapore, you're never going to find enough "local" candidates without a cadet program.

As for the 25-50 hours of GA followed by lots of multicrew sim work, that's more or less happening with the MPL (multi-crew license)-
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Flow2706
Posts: 240
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 7:20 pm

Re: Interesting article regarding pilot training

Thu Aug 31, 2017 9:34 am

I don't think you should cut the G/A part that much. Tragedy's like AF447 or QZ8501 have shown that there was/is a serious lack of basic flying skills. I personally still do a lot of glider flying to keep my stick and rudder skills sharp, even though thats not even IFR flying. I don't want to find myself in a position where I can no longer hand fly the airplane, because thats when things start to go wrong and accidents happen.
But obviously during routine line operations the focus is on CRM and decision making, but the flying skills are still important. And they can be acquired easier and cheaper on a light airplane than on a medium/heavy jet (especially upset recovery, I don't think a huge percentage of the current line pilots are able to confidently recover from a serious or even minor upset...and those who are are probably doing some general aviation flying in their spare time).
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20014
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Interesting article regarding pilot training

Thu Aug 31, 2017 10:09 am

Flow2706 wrote:
I don't think you should cut the G/A part that much. Tragedy's like AF447 or QZ8501 have shown that there was/is a serious lack of basic flying skills. I personally still do a lot of glider flying to keep my stick and rudder skills sharp, even though thats not even IFR flying. I don't want to find myself in a position where I can no longer hand fly the airplane, because thats when things start to go wrong and accidents happen.
But obviously during routine line operations the focus is on CRM and decision making, but the flying skills are still important. And they can be acquired easier and cheaper on a light airplane than on a medium/heavy jet (especially upset recovery, I don't think a huge percentage of the current line pilots are able to confidently recover from a serious or even minor upset...and those who are are probably doing some general aviation flying in their spare time).


AF447 and QZ8501 were partly due to lack of basic flying skills, but the reality was more complex than that. Upset recovery at high altitude and speed in a swept wing jet is certainly related to upset recover in a light piston at low altitude, but there are significant differences. Same with approach in a swept wing jet.

I'm not disagreeing that basic flying skills are important. I'm just saying that for an airline pilot UPRT may be better taught in the aircraft (well, simulator) where the upset is liable to happen, instead of a light piston.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Flow2706
Posts: 240
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 7:20 pm

Re: Interesting article regarding pilot training

Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:10 am

The issue I see with this is that simulators are rather unsuitable for training upset recovery. In my last company we did UPRT in the sim and my current company is starting to do the same...while you can practice techniques in the simulator you can never realistically simulate the startle effect of a sudden upset, nor can g forces be reproduced. Most pilots who never experienced what inverted flight or several g's feel like will probably be overwhelmed by it if faced with it in the real airplane - no matter how much classroom or simulator training is done...and while a 70 ton jet with swept super critical wings is a total different animal than a 500kg piston powered single engine airplane with a straight wing some basic techniques are the same or similar.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20014
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Interesting article regarding pilot training

Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:17 am

Flow2706 wrote:
The issue I see with this is that simulators are rather unsuitable for training upset recovery. In my last company we did UPRT in the sim and my current company is starting to do the same...while you can practice techniques in the simulator you can never realistically simulate the startle effect of a sudden upset, nor can g forces be reproduced. Most pilots who never experienced what inverted flight or several g's feel like will probably be overwhelmed by it if faced with it in the real airplane - no matter how much classroom or simulator training is done...and while a 70 ton jet with swept super critical wings is a total different animal than a 500kg piston powered single engine airplane with a straight wing some basic techniques are the same or similar.


This is a fair point.

So perhaps the solution is both?
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4226
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Interesting article regarding pilot training

Thu Aug 31, 2017 2:30 pm

I have often wondered if a small twin piston could be set up to simulate a number of situations that a large jet could experience. And likely even most experienced pilots would welcome a few hours annually of semi-acrobatics in such a plane. Is there any small twin piston rugged enough to be a training plane?
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6037
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Interesting article regarding pilot training

Thu Aug 31, 2017 2:42 pm

There's no upset recovery training that will match a thousand hours of fighter time.

GF
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: Interesting article regarding pilot training

Thu Aug 31, 2017 3:32 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
There's no upset recovery training that will match a thousand hours of fighter time.

GF


While I don't disagree with your premise the likelihood of anyone getting a thousand hours of fighter time these days is remote and the pilots flying, say the C5 or C17 are not much different than those coming out of an advanced training course. The new advanced upset recovery courses are step in the right direct but they are in some cases being neutered by the likes of EASA and their hooked at the hip to AirBus approach to this subject.
 
Flow2706
Posts: 240
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 7:20 pm

Re: Interesting article regarding pilot training

Thu Aug 31, 2017 4:49 pm

Starlionblue wrote:
Flow2706 wrote:
The issue I see with this is that simulators are rather unsuitable for training upset recovery. In my last company we did UPRT in the sim and my current company is starting to do the same...while you can practice techniques in the simulator you can never realistically simulate the startle effect of a sudden upset, nor can g forces be reproduced. Most pilots who never experienced what inverted flight or several g's feel like will probably be overwhelmed by it if faced with it in the real airplane - no matter how much classroom or simulator training is done...and while a 70 ton jet with swept super critical wings is a total different animal than a 500kg piston powered single engine airplane with a straight wing some basic techniques are the same or similar.


This is a fair point.

So perhaps the solution is both?

Thats what many airlines with cadet programs are doing now - my previous company (which had a cadet program) now includes UPRT training during the initial course and uses the simulator on the line to keep people current. But obviously people who are already on the line won't be able to enjoy the UPRT training on the aircraft only in the sim...
 
HAWKXP
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 6:03 am

Re: Interesting article regarding pilot training

Sat Sep 02, 2017 5:52 am

I am afraid that I was a very bad young Inexperienced CFI. No one died and to my knowledge all of my old students are doing OK. After I retired I was much better at transferring wisdom to new students. NOTHING can substitute for stick & rudder experience. Too bad they can not afford me. :lol:
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6037
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Interesting article regarding pilot training

Sun Sep 03, 2017 4:25 pm

Bravo One,

A flip comment on my part, true. Having done UPRT at NTPS Mohave and at APS at the old Williams AFB, doing the training in a jet is probably better. The Extra used at APS is fun and helpful for those without acro, it doesn't represent jet handling very well--fast power response, fast roll rate, etc. The jet trainers or, better a Sabreliner, does a more realistic job. Any of these programs are better than nothing or just sim training.

After that 1,000 hours, I wound up in C-5s where we didn't have an upset training program other than unusual attitudes in the sim. We needed it--several stall incidents that were barely saved. I investigated one.

GF
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: Interesting article regarding pilot training

Sun Sep 03, 2017 9:27 pm

There is a lot of new stuff in the pipeline regarding Enhanced Envelope Training as it pertains to Boeing aircraft, at least. Boeing is fortunate to have real data to support their simulator modeling,. i.e., they have done it all in the real airplane unlike some others. Of course they are not giving this away for nothing, and as they show and demonstrate the advantageous of using these profiles a lot of airlines are signing up.

I know a number of corporate pilots who have done either the APS or the NTPS and said it was a great program. They happen to have had previous time in the F16 and F4, so they had a leg up but at least in once case they had their entire flight department go through the APS program.
Not very practical for an airline with 12,000+ pilots but a good start none the less. I think Delta Air Lines may have sent a number of their sim instructors down to APS?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6037
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Interesting article regarding pilot training

Mon Sep 04, 2017 12:18 am

We were trying to do the training on a three-year cycle, Schuyler, funding permitting. We added formation work for some specific company requirements. Again, the Extra was not perfect for jet formation but taught co-pilots the idea.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos