Air hours slashed for co-pilots (Merged)
If and when this ever comes in in Australia it will just be another stream for the airlines, not a replacement from the current recruitment paths. The airlines like to recruit from differing backgrounds for a reason. Because they all have their strengths and weaknesses. It is also worth pointing out that airlines over the last 15-20 years have greatly diversified their recruitment streams to through the net far and wide to keep considerable pressure on pilots terms & conditions. I cann't see this ever changing.
In reality these licenses are being introduced as a last resort for countries without a source of pilots. Don't know why CASA really want to legislate them for Australia. It's gunna turn into an absolute nightmare as you would have to somehow guarentee candidates airline jobs to justify the amount of money that they outlay at the same time changing all the legal requirements. So what then happens to everyone else who actually meets the airline's entry requirements??
We are seeing it already in regionals/charter companies with QF cadets. Spots that would otherwise be taken by people with experience are been taking by cadets. Companies then complain of a pilot shortage because they don't have anyone with experience to fly as a captain
When what they should have done is put someone with experience in the RH seat in the first place.
Also I don't think that comparing miltary training and civy training is realistic. The military are training a very low number of candidates overall. Additionally the amount of money spent on military training is astronomical. There is a reason that the military have 20 year F18 pilots and that's because they pick the elite in the country then spend big big dollars training them. Those who don't cut it at any stage are chucked out. If you spent the same amount of money on a MCC that the airforce spends on each of their pilots I would expect that you would have an awesome standard. Unfortunately the real world doesn't work that way.........................
We are seeing it already in regionals/charter companies with QF cadets. Spots that would otherwise be taken by people with experience are been taking by cadets. Companies then complain of a pilot shortage because they don't have anyone with experience to fly as a captain
When what they should have done is put someone with experience in the RH seat in the first place. Also I don't think that comparing miltary training and civy training is realistic. The military are training a very low number of candidates overall. Additionally the amount of money spent on military training is astronomical. There is a reason that the military have 20 year F18 pilots and that's because they pick the elite in the country then spend big big dollars training them. Those who don't cut it at any stage are chucked out. If you spent the same amount of money on a MCC that the airforce spends on each of their pilots I would expect that you would have an awesome standard. Unfortunately the real world doesn't work that way.........................
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404 Titan
The only certainty is that airlines will go for the lowest cost option and CASA will do as there told by their political masters who have been told what to do by their friends in the airline boardrooms. There is no reason for optimism in that a MPL will only be a supplement to the present methods of recruiting.
The overseas experience is, and I stand to be corrected, I believe based around specific training for a multi-crew environment but it still involves plenty of hands on flying as well as simulator work.
Yes the modern generation of simulators are excellent and yes they can be used for endorsement training without the need for sweaty hands to touch a real aircraft but from ab-initio? I don't think so. The people who are doing this in Australia are all coming of high experience levels in real flying.
I recall my instrument rating training, a large part of which was done in a simulator. At the conclusion I didn't feel totally confident and I stayed at the training organisation and did ICUS on charter flights for several weeks. At the conclusion of that real experience I felt a lot more confident to face it on my own.
The only certainty is that airlines will go for the lowest cost option and CASA will do as there told by their political masters who have been told what to do by their friends in the airline boardrooms. There is no reason for optimism in that a MPL will only be a supplement to the present methods of recruiting.
The overseas experience is, and I stand to be corrected, I believe based around specific training for a multi-crew environment but it still involves plenty of hands on flying as well as simulator work.
Yes the modern generation of simulators are excellent and yes they can be used for endorsement training without the need for sweaty hands to touch a real aircraft but from ab-initio? I don't think so.
The people who are doing this in Australia are all coming of high experience levels in real flying.I recall my instrument rating training, a large part of which was done in a simulator. At the conclusion I didn't feel totally confident and I stayed at the training organisation and did ICUS on charter flights for several weeks. At the conclusion of that real experience I felt a lot more confident to face it on my own.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Victoria
Age: 62
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of twenty year old guys and girls flying solo in F-18's in the military with only a couple hundred hours and a good dose of training.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. Get a CPL
2. Get a multi CIR
3. Get your ATPL subjects
4. Get some experience
5. Check your parents/grandparents/uncles/aunts/all relatives for possible visa or right of residence in other countries. Or marry a European or American backpacker
Its a big wide world out there.
Just a couple of guys I know..... one is being put up in a Paris five star hotel and being paid handsomely to punt around in a BAe146. Another got his first job in East Africa flying a shiny Caravan, washed, cleaned, refuelled and hangared by a team of friendly locals. Another is flying around in a B767 living the high life, despite not having 500 multi command needed in australia to be a Metro captain.
Neville said....
In reality these licenses are being introduced as a last resort for countries without a source of pilots. Don't know why CASA really want to legislate them for Australia.
But don't panic just yet if you are a boggie GA pilot on the lower rungs of the ladder.
Anybody thought to work out how much a 70hr real airplane/80 hour simulator MPL might cost? Alteon training in Brisbane charges around $1,000 per hour for simulator time to its contracted clients. A B717 or A320 initial qualification costs somewhere between $60,000 to $70,000 for two pilots paired as trainees in a five or six week course. Thats around 50 hrs in the sim.
An airline that is considering training its own MPLs due to a dwindling or nonexistant GA pilot pool, is looking at $100,000+ in training costs. And you have to find them, train them, accept some failures, feed them, house them, pay them a training wage........
If you have a license, an instrument rating, the right attitude and background, you are already at least $70,000 cheaper for that airline to put you in the right hand seat.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the cost of this new form of licence will be so expensive and have such limited application that few people will have the financial resources to pay for it themselves let alone the desire to do so without a gauranteed job at the end of the process.
The way it will work in the UK/Eurpope will be via airline sponsored training through the auspices of existing sim training establishments, thereby minimising airline expenditure in setup/on going costs.
I doubt Australian airlines will ever pay for candidates training but it has been a common thing in the UK for going on 40 years.
In the EU/UK it is common for 200-300hr TT pilots to find themselves sitting in the RHS of a 737/A320. This is because the UK/EU have no GA...that is not the case around the rest of the world....it is a specifically EU/UK experience. It is wrong to suggest these licence holders won't be up to the job...by the time they have 500 TT they will be indestinguishable from any other new hire low time (200-300hr) FO with 200 jet. By the time they have 5000 hrs they will be well and truly capable of changing seats.
The way it will work in the UK/Eurpope will be via airline sponsored training through the auspices of existing sim training establishments, thereby minimising airline expenditure in setup/on going costs.
I doubt Australian airlines will ever pay for candidates training but it has been a common thing in the UK for going on 40 years.
In the EU/UK it is common for 200-300hr TT pilots to find themselves sitting in the RHS of a 737/A320. This is because the UK/EU have no GA...that is not the case around the rest of the world....it is a specifically EU/UK experience. It is wrong to suggest these licence holders won't be up to the job...by the time they have 500 TT they will be indestinguishable from any other new hire low time (200-300hr) FO with 200 jet. By the time they have 5000 hrs they will be well and truly capable of changing seats.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air hours slashed for co-pilots (Merged)
from news.com
CO-PILOTS with less flying experience than the September 11 terrorists will be able to take control of commercial passenger jets if a new international aviation standard is adopted in Australia.
A new category of licences specifically for co-pilots has been introduced by the International Civil Aviation Organisation to address a global shortage of commercial pilots. It can be adopted around the world from November 23.
If used in Australia, co-pilots will be able to fly passenger jets after having completed 10 hours of solo flying. The existing Australian standard is 100 hours.
The requirements for the multicrew pilot's licence emphasises flight-simulator training, which is cheaper and quicker than actual air time. Simulators have been criticised for failing to fully replicate flight experiences such as g-forces and a pilot's "emotional sense of danger".
ICAO's minimum of 10 hours' solo flying in an actual plane - coupled with 240 hours' total experience - has alarmed Australian pilots' groups and left critics disgusted that passengers would be entrusted to people with less flight time than the al-Qaeda hijackers.
Opposition transport spokesman Kerry O'Brien said the 10-hour rule was a safety concern and called for a Senate inquiry into the proposal.
"The hijackers who flew their planes into the World Trade Centre had more flying hours than that," he said.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has begun a 12-month consultation process to determine whether Australia should increase the minimum standards before the international licence is introduced here.
"What ICAO puts forward are the minimum standards, it's up to us in consultation with industry. We might decide different figures to the ones ICAO is putting forward," a CASA spokesman said.
Currently in Australia, pilots and co-pilots hold air transport pilot's licences, which require 100 hours flying unsupervised as "pilot in command" and 1500 hours in total.
A CASA spokesman confirmed that under the multicrew pilot's licence, co-pilots would fly less because there was "less emphasis on flying irrelevant aircraft such as single-engine aircraft".
"A lot of those hours (required under the current standard) consist of flying around in single-engine aircraft and they're taking them out because they're not particularly relevant," he said.
"(Presently) you learn a lot of things that aren't particularly applicable to flying a 737 or a 747. This is specifically designed for someone who wants to fly a big aircraft."
But the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations, the Australian and International Pilots Association and the Australian Federation of Air Pilots have grave concerns about the proposal.
"Downgrading of these standards cannot and must not be accepted in an industry that is striving to improve flight safety in the face of large traffic increases over the next several years," IFALPA president Dennis Dolan wrote to CASA chief Bruce Byron last month.
AFAP head Bryan Murray said his association was not convinced the multicrew pilot's licence would "produce airline pilots of a standard at least equal to that currently being achieved".
AIPA said the licence was "an extremely significant reduction in traditional minimum-experience requirements compared with the existing air transport pilot licence". AIPA general manager Peter Somerville called for a full regulatory review and asked Transport Minister Mark Vaile to intervene.
"It would be an excellent circuit breaker for the new minister to have a look at the MPL issue and slow the whole process down till we can get a proper handle on it," he said.
CO-PILOTS with less flying experience than the September 11 terrorists will be able to take control of commercial passenger jets if a new international aviation standard is adopted in Australia.
A new category of licences specifically for co-pilots has been introduced by the International Civil Aviation Organisation to address a global shortage of commercial pilots. It can be adopted around the world from November 23.
If used in Australia, co-pilots will be able to fly passenger jets after having completed 10 hours of solo flying. The existing Australian standard is 100 hours.
The requirements for the multicrew pilot's licence emphasises flight-simulator training, which is cheaper and quicker than actual air time. Simulators have been criticised for failing to fully replicate flight experiences such as g-forces and a pilot's "emotional sense of danger".
ICAO's minimum of 10 hours' solo flying in an actual plane - coupled with 240 hours' total experience - has alarmed Australian pilots' groups and left critics disgusted that passengers would be entrusted to people with less flight time than the al-Qaeda hijackers.
Opposition transport spokesman Kerry O'Brien said the 10-hour rule was a safety concern and called for a Senate inquiry into the proposal.
"The hijackers who flew their planes into the World Trade Centre had more flying hours than that," he said.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has begun a 12-month consultation process to determine whether Australia should increase the minimum standards before the international licence is introduced here.
"What ICAO puts forward are the minimum standards, it's up to us in consultation with industry. We might decide different figures to the ones ICAO is putting forward," a CASA spokesman said.
Currently in Australia, pilots and co-pilots hold air transport pilot's licences, which require 100 hours flying unsupervised as "pilot in command" and 1500 hours in total.
A CASA spokesman confirmed that under the multicrew pilot's licence, co-pilots would fly less because there was "less emphasis on flying irrelevant aircraft such as single-engine aircraft".
"A lot of those hours (required under the current standard) consist of flying around in single-engine aircraft and they're taking them out because they're not particularly relevant," he said.
"(Presently) you learn a lot of things that aren't particularly applicable to flying a 737 or a 747. This is specifically designed for someone who wants to fly a big aircraft."
But the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations, the Australian and International Pilots Association and the Australian Federation of Air Pilots have grave concerns about the proposal.
"Downgrading of these standards cannot and must not be accepted in an industry that is striving to improve flight safety in the face of large traffic increases over the next several years," IFALPA president Dennis Dolan wrote to CASA chief Bruce Byron last month.
AFAP head Bryan Murray said his association was not convinced the multicrew pilot's licence would "produce airline pilots of a standard at least equal to that currently being achieved".
AIPA said the licence was "an extremely significant reduction in traditional minimum-experience requirements compared with the existing air transport pilot licence". AIPA general manager Peter Somerville called for a full regulatory review and asked Transport Minister Mark Vaile to intervene.
"It would be an excellent circuit breaker for the new minister to have a look at the MPL issue and slow the whole process down till we can get a proper handle on it," he said.
Although I am against the multi-crew concept (the thought of bare minimum hour jet pilots in Europe and Asia is scary enough with 250hrs), using 911 like that is sickening and proves absolutely nothing.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That can't possibly be right.
The article is suggesting a "co-pilot" would have only ten hours of solo experience? I had that after three weeks of flying training... But I don't think I'd have been quite up to flying a ME prop at that point, let alone a jet... A whole world of problems unfold a whole lot faster at jet speeds.
Surely the article must be missing important salient facts. Would not the "co-pilot" have had to do all the ATPL theory first, and have held a PPL and CPL and have accumulated a significant number of command hours?
Or is that the point - they're proposing to fast track all that out of the system?
If so, count me amongst the unhappy ones...
VHCU
The article is suggesting a "co-pilot" would have only ten hours of solo experience? I had that after three weeks of flying training... But I don't think I'd have been quite up to flying a ME prop at that point, let alone a jet... A whole world of problems unfold a whole lot faster at jet speeds.
Surely the article must be missing important salient facts. Would not the "co-pilot" have had to do all the ATPL theory first, and have held a PPL and CPL and have accumulated a significant number of command hours?
Or is that the point - they're proposing to fast track all that out of the system?
If so, count me amongst the unhappy ones...
VHCU
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do co-pilots in Aussie really need an ATPL as stated in the article? That's news to me. In most places, a CPL is sufficient.
You would not need a PPL, CPL or IR, as the MCL/MPL replaces all of these (and of course, you wouldn't meet the hour requirements). You would not be qualified to take your mates for a joyride in a 172.
240 hours of relevant, multi-crew experience should adequately prepare the candidate for an airline environment. As the article suggests, the hour requirements under the current system include much flight time that is not very relevant. Solo time is one of these. Command aptitude can be easily developed online as currently implemented by most, if not all airlines.
This doesn't do anything to allay the oversupply issue, and would only really work in a preselection, cadet-style program supported by the airlines.
You would not need a PPL, CPL or IR, as the MCL/MPL replaces all of these (and of course, you wouldn't meet the hour requirements). You would not be qualified to take your mates for a joyride in a 172.
240 hours of relevant, multi-crew experience should adequately prepare the candidate for an airline environment. As the article suggests, the hour requirements under the current system include much flight time that is not very relevant. Solo time is one of these. Command aptitude can be easily developed online as currently implemented by most, if not all airlines.
This doesn't do anything to allay the oversupply issue, and would only really work in a preselection, cadet-style program supported by the airlines.
Last edited by Cloud Cutter; 16th Oct 2006 at 02:15.
Co Pilot Licence Proposal?
ABC is reporting about CASA's proposed "watered down" co-pilot licence which has considerably reduced minima for "irrelevent" experience, such as flying single engine aircraft around the outback.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...0/s1765615.htm
It would now appear that even a mug like me could have a go, but to paraphrase Groucho Marks, I wouldn't want to fly with an airline that would have the likes of me in the co pilots seat.
Seriously, I don't think its a good idea, based not on my extremely limited aeronautical knowledge, but on my sailing experience. There is a certain "seat of the pants" experience you get sailing small boats that makes a transfer into larger vessels relatively easy because you are used to dealing with forces involved directly and personally and understand them intimately. As a result the skippers reactions are much quicker than someone who has only had an academic (dare I say simulated?) experience of what is going on.
Many years ago I was out the back of the Hangar at Tulla and watched a DC9 make what I now know to be a circling approach to 34, he had about 45 degrees of bank and made an almost perfect semi circular descent to the threshold. It was blowing like the clappers from the North and a ripper of a southerly front cloud was only a mile or two to the South and at no more than 500 feet AGL. He beat the front by about three minutes. I don't think the pilot that did it learned it on MS Flight Simulator or any other simulator either.
Over to you experts.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...0/s1765615.htm
It would now appear that even a mug like me could have a go, but to paraphrase Groucho Marks, I wouldn't want to fly with an airline that would have the likes of me in the co pilots seat.
Seriously, I don't think its a good idea, based not on my extremely limited aeronautical knowledge, but on my sailing experience. There is a certain "seat of the pants" experience you get sailing small boats that makes a transfer into larger vessels relatively easy because you are used to dealing with forces involved directly and personally and understand them intimately. As a result the skippers reactions are much quicker than someone who has only had an academic (dare I say simulated?) experience of what is going on.
Many years ago I was out the back of the Hangar at Tulla and watched a DC9 make what I now know to be a circling approach to 34, he had about 45 degrees of bank and made an almost perfect semi circular descent to the threshold. It was blowing like the clappers from the North and a ripper of a southerly front cloud was only a mile or two to the South and at no more than 500 feet AGL. He beat the front by about three minutes. I don't think the pilot that did it learned it on MS Flight Simulator or any other simulator either.
Over to you experts.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The original idea of a "multi crew license" came from Europe. It is also being considered in the USA.
I am not an advocate for the proposed "multi crew license" but suggest you carefully read the proposal before commenting, rather than accepting only what is posted in PPRuNe.
In a multi crew aircraft, any deficiency in knowledge in the right seat can not be compensated by additional experience in the left seat. The proposal attempts to address that issue.
I am not an advocate for the proposed "multi crew license" but suggest you carefully read the proposal before commenting, rather than accepting only what is posted in PPRuNe.
In a multi crew aircraft, any deficiency in knowledge in the right seat can not be compensated by additional experience in the left seat. The proposal attempts to address that issue.
Moderator
Sorry if this thread appears confusing, but it is the result of merging three separate threads and I don't have time to sort out individual posts.
The point is we are not talking about replacing thousands of hours of Bush flying with a few hours in the sim.
I regularly fly with FOs who have as little as 270hrs actual flight time. the little bit of solo lighty flying they have done really is rather irrelevent to the job they are training for. I would rather they did more training in a Multi-pilot sim of the type and in the operations they are going to actually operate they pounding the circuit in a Cherokee.
Where I'd be wary is that this could be a money maker for the likes of VB or J*. "Hand over your 200K and we'll make you a pilot double quick!!"
Given the choice between a guy with a couple of thousand hours GA or a freshie Cadet, I take the bush basher every time, but in environments (notably Europe) where that is not always an option, pilots specifically trained for the job at hand is not a bad way to go.
I regularly fly with FOs who have as little as 270hrs actual flight time. the little bit of solo lighty flying they have done really is rather irrelevent to the job they are training for. I would rather they did more training in a Multi-pilot sim of the type and in the operations they are going to actually operate they pounding the circuit in a Cherokee.
Where I'd be wary is that this could be a money maker for the likes of VB or J*. "Hand over your 200K and we'll make you a pilot double quick!!"
Given the choice between a guy with a couple of thousand hours GA or a freshie Cadet, I take the bush basher every time, but in environments (notably Europe) where that is not always an option, pilots specifically trained for the job at hand is not a bad way to go.
Usually when a company complains about not being able to find staff they deliberately forget to add the important bit they can't find staff at the price they are willing to pay.
I would expect that the airlines can find any amount of highly motivated recruits if they raised the pay by $100,00 per annum.
My guess is that the ideal that the airlines (especially in Australia) are striving for is for company licenced pilots whose licences are not readily transferable. These people are then tied to the company and can be paid a pittance.
In a way this is a throwback to the "bad old days" in a way. Everyone knew that TAA wouldn't "poach" Ansett staff and Ansett returned the favour, you were effectively tied to your company for life if you wanted to stay in the industry.. The pay was RS unless you had a really strong union. I left AN when G McM explained to me that he couldn't match my post MBA Consulting job offer starting salary because it was more than an AN State manager was getting!
I would expect that the airlines can find any amount of highly motivated recruits if they raised the pay by $100,00 per annum.
My guess is that the ideal that the airlines (especially in Australia) are striving for is for company licenced pilots whose licences are not readily transferable. These people are then tied to the company and can be paid a pittance.
In a way this is a throwback to the "bad old days" in a way. Everyone knew that TAA wouldn't "poach" Ansett staff and Ansett returned the favour, you were effectively tied to your company for life if you wanted to stay in the industry.. The pay was RS unless you had a really strong union. I left AN when G McM explained to me that he couldn't match my post MBA Consulting job offer starting salary because it was more than an AN State manager was getting!