ATSB Report on low hour copilots flight safety in RPT operations.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATSB Report on low hour copilots flight safety in RPT operations.
Pilot experience and performance in an airline environment
The ATSB paper discusses flight safety questions of cadet airline pilots and general aviation pilots recruited into Australian operators and whether or not previous experience makes for better first officers. The conclusion reached by the researchers was that adequate competency existed for both low hour and experienced first officers.
"Experienced" is defined in the paper. In short, researchers concluded it was quite safe for cadet first officers to be second in command of airliners.
The research included observation of line training an simulator training. The report did not state what percentage of either the line flying or simulator flying was manually flown on instruments.
The ATSB paper discusses flight safety questions of cadet airline pilots and general aviation pilots recruited into Australian operators and whether or not previous experience makes for better first officers. The conclusion reached by the researchers was that adequate competency existed for both low hour and experienced first officers.
"Experienced" is defined in the paper. In short, researchers concluded it was quite safe for cadet first officers to be second in command of airliners.
The research included observation of line training an simulator training. The report did not state what percentage of either the line flying or simulator flying was manually flown on instruments.
Good point "Username here", I think we can all agree that hours are not the full story. As someone recently pointed out to me, look at the career of a Pilot with 10,000hrs who started as a Cadet. It's been spent with the vast majority of it on Autopilot, as I understand it, most SOPs (Talking about the Majors here) dictate to switch to AP a minute or two after takeoff and then switch off a minute or so from landing if at all, and that could be on a 3-8hr flight, even if they were doing shorthaul, say 2hr sectors, thats maybe 4minutes out of 120minutes of actual flying, around 3-4%, so out of that 10,000hrs that might only be 300-350hrs of non-automation hand flying that has been done so perhaps only 30hrs a year. If they've gone to a carrier like Cathay Pacific where the sectors are even longer and they don't even get to really touch the controls until they've been a Second Officer for up to 5 years that percentage will be vastly lower.
I keep hearing about Pilots who have come through the ranks the old way that are becoming concerned at a lack of stick and rudder or non-automation skills, imagine what the next generation of Cadet Pilots who never truly worked at those skills will have at their disposal when it all goes to hell.
Me, personally, I'm still at the lower end of the scale around 1500hrs and I feel there's still a lot to be learned before I have to move on...or maybe I'm just a Masochist at heart!!
I keep hearing about Pilots who have come through the ranks the old way that are becoming concerned at a lack of stick and rudder or non-automation skills, imagine what the next generation of Cadet Pilots who never truly worked at those skills will have at their disposal when it all goes to hell.
Me, personally, I'm still at the lower end of the scale around 1500hrs and I feel there's still a lot to be learned before I have to move on...or maybe I'm just a Masochist at heart!!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In almost ALL areas, experienced, direct entry pilots performed better than their cadet counterparts. Why are we settling for second best in this country? 
After all, the FO (25, CPL, 311 hours total, 141 hours on type) who landed this MA60 was deemed to have met the company standards of proficiency.
After all, the FO (25, CPL, 311 hours total, 141 hours on type) who landed this MA60 was deemed to have met the company standards of proficiency.
How many hours were on the flight deck of that trip seven at SFO?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No worries slam_click. Yes, simulator training for the type rating with a check by the company check pilot as well as the DGCA inspector occurs before line training. The company doesn't consider you as a 'qualified first officer' until you have been checked to line. Those who have failed to check to line have had their employment terminated by the company.
As soon as I read "University" and "simulator" I had my doubts about that
report.
report.
Its a pity they didn't include a survey of line captains across the three airlines to see if it differed from the clinical simulator studies. Even a sim tech can fly the simulator. The anecdotal evidence of the last decade is that piloting skills are decreasing. I think the mantra of the superior training provided by simulators is flawed. A pilot who has developed the basic flying skills of single pilot IFR can be taught the discipline and procedures of an airline environment. The pilot who has been trained in the discipline and procedures of an airline environment cannot develop the basic flying skills of single pilot IFR IMHO.
The pilot who has been trained in the discipline and procedures of an airline environment cannot develop the basic flying skills of single pilot IFR IMHO.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
It's all about risk percentages isn't it. In my experience a 200 hour FO will probably make the right call under pressure 80% of the time, a very highly experienced one 99% of the time.
Same with a brand new captain or one new on type - the risk factor of making the wrong call or the wrong input due to unfamiliarity is high at first, and then rapidly reduces as they get some hours in the LHS or the new machine.
That's why most companies have a policy of only pairing brand new FO's with experienced captains, and vice versa, new captains only with high time FO's.
Those researchers need to understand that the sim is just a big computer game / procedural training box, it's very good at what it does, but it can't replicate the real emotional response of being in real trouble in a real aircraft under real pressure. When the sh*t hits the fan in the aircraft, and the more life-and-death the situation is, I will absolutely guarantee you that the experience level of the pilots makes a massive difference to how well the situation gets handled.
My point is that you can teach a monkey to fly a sim "adequately", but you can't teach the old school intangibles like "judgment" "airmanship" "level headedness under pressure" or even "common sense", without some time on the line and probably some scares along the way.
Same with a brand new captain or one new on type - the risk factor of making the wrong call or the wrong input due to unfamiliarity is high at first, and then rapidly reduces as they get some hours in the LHS or the new machine.
That's why most companies have a policy of only pairing brand new FO's with experienced captains, and vice versa, new captains only with high time FO's.
Those researchers need to understand that the sim is just a big computer game / procedural training box, it's very good at what it does, but it can't replicate the real emotional response of being in real trouble in a real aircraft under real pressure. When the sh*t hits the fan in the aircraft, and the more life-and-death the situation is, I will absolutely guarantee you that the experience level of the pilots makes a massive difference to how well the situation gets handled.
My point is that you can teach a monkey to fly a sim "adequately", but you can't teach the old school intangibles like "judgment" "airmanship" "level headedness under pressure" or even "common sense", without some time on the line and probably some scares along the way.
My point is that you can teach a monkey to fly a sim "adequately", but you
can't teach the old school intangibles like "judgment" "airmanship" "level
headedness under pressure" or even "common sense", without some time on the line and probably some scares along the way.
can't teach the old school intangibles like "judgment" "airmanship" "level
headedness under pressure" or even "common sense", without some time on the line and probably some scares along the way.
That's a fairly solid generalisation...
I like to think I have relatively good box familiarity, but maybe we're talking about something different...
Chief Pilot got up at a training meeting and told us to all pull our heads in about their whizz bang cadet program because they knew what they were doing. Our generalisation about their standards being poor was rubbish, even though he'd never flown with any. Apparently we were good enough to oversee the training and checking within his airline, but we were completely blind to how fantastic their cadet pilots were.
He then proceeded to put graphs on powerpoint, showing that after the first twelve to eighteen months cadet pilots on average performed as well or better than direct entry pilots.
I don't think he realised he inadvertantly confirmed our exact concerns - that cadet pilots were significantly worse performing during their first twelve to eighteen months
They also then placed restrictions on First Officers operating circling approaches, crosswind landings above 50% of max etc. etc.
It was explained this was "risk management" rather than concerns with cadet FOs. It seemed strange that this "risk management" hadn't occurred in the past thirty years on the same aircraft type and operation, but was suddenly required within twelve months of the cadet program.
While the airline stands to make money out of training them, or benefit from return-of-service agreements (as most pilots run out the door faster than they can train them), nothing will change. The airlines will always spruik the safety of cadet programs while it provides a financial or operational advantage to them.
If they could make more money out of employing direct entry pilots vs cadets, they'd suddenly change their minds on the safety benefits.
Money - makes the world go around.
He then proceeded to put graphs on powerpoint, showing that after the first twelve to eighteen months cadet pilots on average performed as well or better than direct entry pilots.
I don't think he realised he inadvertantly confirmed our exact concerns - that cadet pilots were significantly worse performing during their first twelve to eighteen months
They also then placed restrictions on First Officers operating circling approaches, crosswind landings above 50% of max etc. etc.
It was explained this was "risk management" rather than concerns with cadet FOs. It seemed strange that this "risk management" hadn't occurred in the past thirty years on the same aircraft type and operation, but was suddenly required within twelve months of the cadet program.
While the airline stands to make money out of training them, or benefit from return-of-service agreements (as most pilots run out the door faster than they can train them), nothing will change. The airlines will always spruik the safety of cadet programs while it provides a financial or operational advantage to them.
If they could make more money out of employing direct entry pilots vs cadets, they'd suddenly change their minds on the safety benefits.
Money - makes the world go around.
It's an ever growing concern to the bean counters as to what to do re employment/training costs of new drivers.
'SP' has said it all really in his last few lines above & God 4bid I hope we only ever end up here amongst these pages complaining bitching etc about DEC's, Cadets & all the other Co initiated 'schemes' to save $$$ than being stunned about a hull loss & it's associated loss of life due an inexperienced driver behind the wheel!!
The 'strength' in experience is there or has been for good reasons over many years whilst aviation has evolved but you can only 'lighten the load' so much 'till something breaks!
Wmk2
'SP' has said it all really in his last few lines above & God 4bid I hope we only ever end up here amongst these pages complaining bitching etc about DEC's, Cadets & all the other Co initiated 'schemes' to save $$$ than being stunned about a hull loss & it's associated loss of life due an inexperienced driver behind the wheel!!
The 'strength' in experience is there or has been for good reasons over many years whilst aviation has evolved but you can only 'lighten the load' so much 'till something breaks!
Wmk2
Summary does not match data!
This report appears to have some summary comments on the Safety summary page which are not supported by the data. From the data, it is clear that cadets perform less well than DE pilots in nearly all categories in Airline A and Airline C, with Airline B showing an equivalence at the 5 year stage.
Certainly I fail to see how the summary statement "The overall performance of cadets and low-hour pilots matched that of their direct entry and high hour peers" relates to the data. Have I missed something?
SB
Certainly I fail to see how the summary statement "The overall performance of cadets and low-hour pilots matched that of their direct entry and high hour peers" relates to the data. Have I missed something?
SB
Their argument is that cadets exceeded the minimum standard and were only a little lower than DE pilots. Mind you the ATSB have some incident reports on cadets doing some 'interesting' things during actual REAL line ops, funny they were never mentioned in their report.
I think it is a case of the MPL providers lobbying the government, the government says we should do this, they then create some Reports justifying their position then they put it into law.
Problem is that the airlines make money out of it so they will try their best to cover for the cadets. Like to see a cadet handle the little incidents down at Mildura with 500 hours total. That's when experience counts.
I think it is a case of the MPL providers lobbying the government, the government says we should do this, they then create some Reports justifying their position then they put it into law.
Problem is that the airlines make money out of it so they will try their best to cover for the cadets. Like to see a cadet handle the little incidents down at Mildura with 500 hours total. That's when experience counts.
Surely it's all in the quality of training, then the discipline applied to operations?
Hours don't mean much if they have been amassed droning around on VFR scenic flights or repeating endless standardised exercises with students, or have been acquired over a limited geographic area etc.
I would much prefer my F/O was a well-disciplined 400-500 hour cadet than a 15,000 hour jock who had flown single pilot all his life. If the chips are down, I can do the flying bit, but good support could make all the difference. That only comes from proper training in multi-crew procedures.
The MPL is the future. If you want an airline career, understand this.
Hours don't mean much if they have been amassed droning around on VFR scenic flights or repeating endless standardised exercises with students, or have been acquired over a limited geographic area etc.
I would much prefer my F/O was a well-disciplined 400-500 hour cadet than a 15,000 hour jock who had flown single pilot all his life. If the chips are down, I can do the flying bit, but good support could make all the difference. That only comes from proper training in multi-crew procedures.
The MPL is the future. If you want an airline career, understand this.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 26th Jul 2013 at 06:02.