Air hours slashed for co-pilots (Merged)
Don't be alarmed by this licence; some would argue that the current requirements are far too low. Fact is, if you don't cut the mustard - you won't be flying in the airline. It'll become apparent when you do your endorsements/line training. If you do make it through; 10 hours is in the same ballpark as 100 (which many QF cadets joined with), its a very small number.
Aviation will never return to the good 'ol days, where flying was dangerous and pilots were heros. The genious of engineering and technology has all but ruined the 'magic' of being an airline pilot. Planes are so very safe now, they don't need einstein to fly 'em. Welcome to the new era of bus drivers. Thats about all the doom and gloom I can muster up for now
The comparison of 9/11 here is stupid and insensitive. For starters there was no evidence to suggest the 9/11 pilots had a 'lack' of skill, on the contrary, so what does this comparison hope to illustrate?!
Aviation will never return to the good 'ol days, where flying was dangerous and pilots were heros. The genious of engineering and technology has all but ruined the 'magic' of being an airline pilot. Planes are so very safe now, they don't need einstein to fly 'em. Welcome to the new era of bus drivers. Thats about all the doom and gloom I can muster up for now
The comparison of 9/11 here is stupid and insensitive. For starters there was no evidence to suggest the 9/11 pilots had a 'lack' of skill, on the contrary, so what does this comparison hope to illustrate?!
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
podbreak is on the money. So far the usual uninformed debate. Read my earlier post:
I could add "and making a fool of yourself....."!
Why is informed debate so rare there days?
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.
Why is informed debate so rare there days?
So CASA are saying that they are going to rewrite entire slabs of legislation and lower every standard that has even been established in this country?
Are insurance companies now going to change all their minimums too??
Who is going to pay huge coin for a MPL only to get a job at Skippers(who are a multi crew RPT operation) working as a casual? It is only justifiable if you can get a high paying job at the end of it.
It should also be stated that the majority of people getting into airlines do not walk from a single piston into jets. The majority of people flying jets in this country previous job would have been on some type of turbo prop or jet. Flying small aircraft around is only one step along the way.
This license is a last resort for countries that want to train nationals into their airlines not for Australia where we are exporting pilots to the rest of the world.
Are insurance companies now going to change all their minimums too??
Who is going to pay huge coin for a MPL only to get a job at Skippers(who are a multi crew RPT operation) working as a casual? It is only justifiable if you can get a high paying job at the end of it.
It should also be stated that the majority of people getting into airlines do not walk from a single piston into jets. The majority of people flying jets in this country previous job would have been on some type of turbo prop or jet. Flying small aircraft around is only one step along the way.
This license is a last resort for countries that want to train nationals into their airlines not for Australia where we are exporting pilots to the rest of the world.
Nunc est bibendum
I learnt a significant amount from not just those scary times but a whole bunch of the other time spent flogging around on my own- lessons that I still draw on some 7000 hours later.
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Improved air safety is the key principle behind a proposal for a new way of training
CASA Media Release - Tuesday 17 October 2006
New pilot licence to improve airline safety
Improved air safety is the key principle behind a proposal for a new way of training and licensing airline co-pilots.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has started work on developing regulations to introduce a multi-crew pilot licence.
This licence would be issued to people who train specifically to become a first officer in an air transport operation.
The move to develop the new regulations will keep Australia at the forefront of international changes in air safety, in line with the latest standards issued by the International Civil Aviation Organisation which come into effect in November.
CASA and other world-leading safety regulators have been working with the International Civil Aviation Organisation to improve safety by developing better training standards for airline pilots.
Safety research over many years has indicated that failures in teamwork are a major contributor to airline accidents. One reason is that traditional methods of training pilots emphasise independence and individual skills.
This is suits single pilot operations but pilots moving to work in airlines have needed ‘top up' training to work effectively in the small teams that fly air transport aircraft. The training behind the proposed new licence is designed to embed multi-crew teamwork from the very start of training, which will lift safety standards.
CASA will undertake a comprehensive consultation process with the relevant sectors of the aviation industry in developing the regulations to introduce the new licence.
This means the final details of the regulations have not yet been determined, with the rules not expected to be finalised until the second half of next year.
Claims that the changes will put safety at risk have been firmly rejected by CASA. People training for the multi-crew licence will focus on large aircraft flying skills, crew resource management and threat and error management throughout their year-long training.
Practical flying training will include flying aircraft, as well as operations in sophisticated simulators, with a strong emphasis on the competencies required for flying large turbine powered aircraft in a multi-crew environment.
In Australia, there will be a requirement for up to 70 hours flying training in aircraft, out of 240 hours total flying training time.
New pilot licence to improve airline safety
Improved air safety is the key principle behind a proposal for a new way of training and licensing airline co-pilots.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has started work on developing regulations to introduce a multi-crew pilot licence.
This licence would be issued to people who train specifically to become a first officer in an air transport operation.
The move to develop the new regulations will keep Australia at the forefront of international changes in air safety, in line with the latest standards issued by the International Civil Aviation Organisation which come into effect in November.
CASA and other world-leading safety regulators have been working with the International Civil Aviation Organisation to improve safety by developing better training standards for airline pilots.
Safety research over many years has indicated that failures in teamwork are a major contributor to airline accidents. One reason is that traditional methods of training pilots emphasise independence and individual skills.
This is suits single pilot operations but pilots moving to work in airlines have needed ‘top up' training to work effectively in the small teams that fly air transport aircraft. The training behind the proposed new licence is designed to embed multi-crew teamwork from the very start of training, which will lift safety standards.
CASA will undertake a comprehensive consultation process with the relevant sectors of the aviation industry in developing the regulations to introduce the new licence.
This means the final details of the regulations have not yet been determined, with the rules not expected to be finalised until the second half of next year.
Claims that the changes will put safety at risk have been firmly rejected by CASA. People training for the multi-crew licence will focus on large aircraft flying skills, crew resource management and threat and error management throughout their year-long training.
Practical flying training will include flying aircraft, as well as operations in sophisticated simulators, with a strong emphasis on the competencies required for flying large turbine powered aircraft in a multi-crew environment.
In Australia, there will be a requirement for up to 70 hours flying training in aircraft, out of 240 hours total flying training time.
I can understand this MCL being 'warranted' in places of short supply like China, India etc, but why the hell are CASA planning to introduce this here??
What really starts to give me the ****s is the way that experience is fast becoming an albatross around pilot's necks. It is such utter BS to believe that if a pilot has SP experience, that they can't make the transition to 'work in small teams like in an airline'. It's another skill to learn, on top of all the other skills we learn as we gather experience.
It really is starting to turn into some sort of sick joke; and the fact that CASA are playing this as 'increased safety' is frankly, pathetic.
It's all fun and games until 'good times go bad'.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: SEA (or better PAE)
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australia to cut down flight time for ATP license
Hello all.
Some of you'll be happy some won't (majority I think) but it seems Australian CAA (CASA) made a decision to cut down the required time for the first officer license down to 240hr (total) (70hrs flying, 10hrs solo) .
I wonder, I wonder...how low can you go...
Here is the link
Are we all happy or what? Is this going to become a trend?
Are all the FS jockeys going to start flying passengers?
If that is in works do we know what our respective CAAs are doing?
By the way, with a learner's permit (New South Wales, for example) you need to drive for at least 50hrs to get the right to go for a test that will get you a provisional license.
50hrs driving time, 70hrs flying time...hmmm
Cheers
Some of you'll be happy some won't (majority I think) but it seems Australian CAA (CASA) made a decision to cut down the required time for the first officer license down to 240hr (total) (70hrs flying, 10hrs solo)
.I wonder, I wonder...how low can you go...
Here is the link
Are we all happy or what? Is this going to become a trend?
Are all the FS jockeys going to start flying passengers?
If that is in works do we know what our respective CAAs are doing?
By the way, with a learner's permit (New South Wales, for example) you need to drive for at least 50hrs to get the right to go for a test that will get you a provisional license.
50hrs driving time, 70hrs flying time...hmmm
Cheers
Keg what the hell were you doing to scare yourself numerous times in 100 hours?? Lucky you never did a couple of thousand in GA!! I only had a three "scares" in 2000 hours one weather related the others mechanical. However you are stronger for experience and I personally believe this is the weak link in the new license. The first time these guy experience something will be in a jet with several hundred people sitting behind them. Yeah sure they do it in the sim however the "oh ****e this is for real" factor will be the difference!
CASA's media release seems to forget about all the guys in non airline operations doing multi crew. Are these guys also unsuitable for moving into airline operations even though they are already multi crew pilots.
CASA's media release seems to forget about all the guys in non airline operations doing multi crew. Are these guys also unsuitable for moving into airline operations even though they are already multi crew pilots.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: vic
Age: 23
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The places where this MCL is aimed for are the most dangerous anyway. Imagine Asia where some guys, I won't say all, are just plain scary. Throw some 100 hour wonder and an unusual situation, because it does not have to be an emergency situation to end up that way, and then see the result. The real problem will be that the weight will be placed firmly on the shoulders of the skipper and it will revert to single pilot ops because the other guy has had no experience in unusual situations.
I cannot believe the regulatory authority in this country is entertaining the thought of placing these guys in our workplace. First we have an extension of the retirement age and now a lowering of standards, its a recipe for disaster not an improvement of safety standards.
I hope that the all the proffessional organisations in the country that represent proffessional pilots fights this vigorously and beat it into submission.
steps down from soapbox......
I cannot believe the regulatory authority in this country is entertaining the thought of placing these guys in our workplace. First we have an extension of the retirement age and now a lowering of standards, its a recipe for disaster not an improvement of safety standards.
I hope that the all the proffessional organisations in the country that represent proffessional pilots fights this vigorously and beat it into submission.
steps down from soapbox......
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose the real conceren is where the skiper IS the unusual situation. Imagine scenarios like the BA flight where the BAC1-11 captain was sucked through the windscreen on a well-established climb out of Heathrow, and the FO had to bring it down and land at Eastleigh, too heavy, too short, but all walked away. Not sure a 2-300 hour chappie would have done quite such a sterling job.
I thought the whole point of PNF/P2/"The Co-pilot" was to make sure the PF doesn't make any errors... Isn't there going to be a whole lot of "what's that for?" and "what's it doing now?" going on...
VHCU
I thought the whole point of PNF/P2/"The Co-pilot" was to make sure the PF doesn't make any errors... Isn't there going to be a whole lot of "what's that for?" and "what's it doing now?" going on...
VHCU
Grandpa Aerotart
Interesting innit?
They are belittling the very skills a captain is going to possibly need when the **** hits the fan big time...single pilot skills
In the not too distant future there are going to be lots of jets flying around with VERY steep cross cockpit gradients. I certainly remember learning that was a bad thing in CRM...after my 'worthless' 7000 hrs of SP IFR RPT/charter experience.
The problem is that modern jets are so reliable that a certain sector of our industry, beancounters, have decided that experience is truly an expensive liability...and the sundry aviation authorities are so 'cornered' by a lack of pertinent experience within their ranks they are being led down a dangerous path and don't even realise it.
Personally I don't see any advantage in Australia for such a licence and I don't think the airlines will hire such licence holders...but in Asia and the UK/EU it is a different story. They 'successfully' transition cadets with not much more experience than a MPL holder might have, although it's all in real aeroplanes...but even then many cadets, or at least those working for smarter airlines, spend time in large turboprops, a couple of years usually, before sitting in a widebody.
It is an undeniable fact of life that if you don't learn the basics of flying before you get to a widebody jet you won't learn them after. Since transitioning from older narrow body jets where lots of handflying was the norm to modern widebodies I wouldn't average 3-4 minutes of handflying per PF sector. That equates to 20 odd minutes a month and all of that is hand flying below 1000' on departure or approach.
It isn't an issue because of the 11000 hrs that came before...I find it 'interesting' that various aviation authorities think it won't create a new set of problems.
They are belittling the very skills a captain is going to possibly need when the **** hits the fan big time...single pilot skills
In the not too distant future there are going to be lots of jets flying around with VERY steep cross cockpit gradients. I certainly remember learning that was a bad thing in CRM...after my 'worthless' 7000 hrs of SP IFR RPT/charter experience.
The problem is that modern jets are so reliable that a certain sector of our industry, beancounters, have decided that experience is truly an expensive liability...and the sundry aviation authorities are so 'cornered' by a lack of pertinent experience within their ranks they are being led down a dangerous path and don't even realise it.
Personally I don't see any advantage in Australia for such a licence and I don't think the airlines will hire such licence holders...but in Asia and the UK/EU it is a different story. They 'successfully' transition cadets with not much more experience than a MPL holder might have, although it's all in real aeroplanes...but even then many cadets, or at least those working for smarter airlines, spend time in large turboprops, a couple of years usually, before sitting in a widebody.
It is an undeniable fact of life that if you don't learn the basics of flying before you get to a widebody jet you won't learn them after. Since transitioning from older narrow body jets where lots of handflying was the norm to modern widebodies I wouldn't average 3-4 minutes of handflying per PF sector. That equates to 20 odd minutes a month and all of that is hand flying below 1000' on departure or approach.
It isn't an issue because of the 11000 hrs that came before...I find it 'interesting' that various aviation authorities think it won't create a new set of problems.
Read it and weep. Absolute heartbreaking for people busting their butts in GA. You'll finally get all this experience that everyone goes on about only to find that you get by passed by someone with a bigger bank account.
http://www.casa.gov.au/media/2006/06-10-17.htm
http://www.casa.gov.au/media/2006/06-10-17.htm
1. WRT last para. of CASA proposal, so they're actually going to insist on "practical flying training" as well as being able to get along with the Captain.............!!!!!!!!!!
2. Just as a matter of interest, isn't this exactly what is being proposed in the UK ?
3. Having flown with vastly different characters in the right-hand seat, could it be that this just might be a good idea ??
2. Just as a matter of interest, isn't this exactly what is being proposed in the UK ?
3. Having flown with vastly different characters in the right-hand seat, could it be that this just might be a good idea ??
I think the issue is why is it necessary in Australia?? There will always be a vast multitude of pilots to choose from in this country. Most people getting into major airlines in this country are already coming from a multi crew background. So why the hell do we NEED to put someone with absolutely no flying experience whatsoever in a jet. For countries with a limited supply of pilots this is fine, it's a last resort, but in Australia airlines are not exactly scatching to find applicants. So much so people are spending thousands of dollars just to do an interview Easterns are charging $10 000 for a 45 000 a year job. National jet pilots took pay cuts to win a contract. These are not signs of a desperate pilot shortage. 200 hours of training does not equal thousands hours of flying experience.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: vic
Age: 23
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the info I had on these MCLs 12 months ago said that the guys occupying the RHS with a MCL would never be able to hold a command. Is that the case? If so, this poses a couple of questions:
1. Who are eventually going to replace the guys in the LHS?
2. If they do have replacements, where the fcuk are they going to come from?
I can't believe that our regulator with it's usual sit on hands approach and see what happens, has come out in undeniable support for such a rediculous and obvious push by airlines to keep their pilots in financial order.
1. Who are eventually going to replace the guys in the LHS?
2. If they do have replacements, where the fcuk are they going to come from?
I can't believe that our regulator with it's usual sit on hands approach and see what happens, has come out in undeniable support for such a rediculous and obvious push by airlines to keep their pilots in financial order.