Pilot Jobs, Pilot Forum, CV Database, Training & Career Support
Welcome to the International Pilot Network
The International Pilot Network offers job seekers access to pilot jobs and other useful pilot career information. You are currently browsing the pilot forum as a guest which gives you limited access. To make full use of all forum- and community features, you are invited to register. Should you have problems with the registration process, please contact us.
Aviation Safety, going forward or backward?
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
Written on: 04. 12. 2011 [19:45]
|
|
|
fliteadmin
 Board CaptainAdministrator Moderator
Topic creator
registered since: 26.12.2006
Posts: 435
|
The reliability of the aircraft we fly has greatly improved over the years. Engine failures are a relatively rare occurrence. Additional equipment such as TCAS and EGPWS have greatly improved Aviation Safety. On top of that CRM Training has left some positive marks on all of us. So this might make us think that Aviation Safety is on the right track, but is it really? Remember the Colgan Air Flight 3407 accident back in Feb 2009? Pilot error was the cause. But why were these errors made by the pilot? Lack of adequate training, lack of company SOPs?, lack of sleep? Contributing factors were (1) the flight crew's failure to monitor airspeed in relation to the rising position of the lowspeed cue, (2) the flight crew's failure to adhere to sterile cockpit procedures, (3) the captain's failure to effectively manage the flight, and (4) Colgan Air’s inadequate procedures for airspeed selection and management during approaches in icing conditions The Board further found that: "The pilots' performance was likely impaired because of fatigue... Are we flying safer today than in the past? Equipment has improved, but did our flying skill as well? How good is the pilot's technical knowledge of his aircraft compared to the 70s, 80s or 90s? Dis we trade in CRM knowledge with technical skills? Require modern aircraft still the technical and flying skills as older aircraft did? How do cost saving programs affect flight safety? ARE WE ON THE RIGHT TRACK? flightwork.com - International Pilot Network |
|
Written on: 14. 12. 2011 [19:25]
|
|
|
ekranoplan
 Board Cadet Pilotregistered since: 13.08.2011
Posts: 7
|
We are on the wrong track in terms of Flight Safety, training pilots and in giving them progressive careers - in the EU at least. When USA and Australia are demanding more from their pilots in terms of experience, in the EU and UK especially it is being lowered more and more. The reason is cost and shareholder profits are seen as more important than pilot pay or ability: 1. Now many UK carriers are contracting out pilot supply to a few schools who sell them the MPL route to an FO position. These schemes (including approved or integrated cadet schemes) are funded by the applicant. That person's debt (often around EUR100,000 to 150,000) becomes an interest free bank account for the airline. Terms and conditions of existing pilots are eroded (existing FOs are put on standby while cadets fly so lengthening time to get required hours for command). The 1000s of highly experienced pilots from the Military, GA or even turbo prop airlines cannot get an interview because it is cheaper to hire an MPL student on a short term contract. 2. Self Finded TRs and P2F: (pay to fly): To make matters worse, paying for type ratings ( a business expense that airlines can offset against tax) is seen as normal. Here the pilot, not the business, takes on huge debts to fund the airline. Some LoCo airlines even sell the RH front seat for around EURO 30,000 to give "line training" to wannabee pilots. This means working for them for 100 to 300 bours and then having no job at the end. Even some cadet/MPL/flexycrew schemes have given just 6 months "employment" where the cadet is paid back GBP 1000 a month of their own initial "investment" before having to return to a bar job to pay the bank loans. The treatment by some LoCo airlines of these workers is disgraceful. 3. As reliability has improved, so pilot professionalism has often taken on a downward spiral. An over reliance on automation has caused flying skills to wither. Almost 1900 deaths in Western jet Airliners over the past decade are down to Loss of Control. 4. Both P2F and Cadet/MPL schemes place greater pressure on existing Captains who often feel like they are flying single crew. P2F hour builders in particular can cause tensions in teh cockpit affecting CRM because the Captains do not agree with these schemes. The lack of flying experience of cadets/P2F students is a result of being sent onto a B737/A320 sized jet before doing much real flying in Turboprops/Military/GA. In the past BA, Britannia and others sent their fully sponsored cadets to fly smaller machines (eg: MacAlpine HS125 Biz jets) for up to 2 years before flying larger airliners to get them air minded. Now with MPL there is not even a requirement for solo flying. Most cadets do Mutual flying - not true solo work during their short Light Aircraft courses. The solution? 1. Regulators should limit the number of cadets an airline can recruit each year - 20% of workforce at any one time rather than the current 60% of FOs for one UK LoCo. 2. Airlines should be encouraged to seek out a diverse pilot demographic and encourage junior pilot apprenticeship schemes with each other so that cadets can work on Turboprops/light jets or even instructing with approved schools before joining the main jet fleets. 3. P2F and Self Funded TRs should be banned under EU law. The Airlines should fund training after frozen ATPL/ATP. Pilots should be bonded for 2 to 3 years per TR and all airlines should have a database of bonding agreements within EU to prevent early leavers going after a year without paying something for their training. 4. All pilots should be given Upset recovery training (not just Sim Tests) in real aerobatic aircraft at least once a year. 5. Automation airmanship courses should be introduced on an annual basis by Airbus/Boeing/etc. Note Bombardier already does something (Free to attend!): http://www.safetystanddown.com/ |
|
Written on: 16. 12. 2011 [22:22]
|
|
|
fliteadmin
Board CaptainAdministrator Moderator
Topic creator
registered since: 26.12.2006
Posts: 435
|
ekranoplan wrote: 4. Both P2F and Cadet/MPL schemes place greater pressure on existing Captains who often feel like they are flying single crew. P2F hour builders in particular can cause tensions in teh cockpit affecting CRM because the Captains do not agree with these schemes. The lack of flying experience of cadets/P2F students is a result of being sent onto a B737/A320 sized jet before doing much real flying in Turboprops/Military/GA. In the past BA, Britannia and others sent their fully sponsored cadets to fly smaller machines (eg: MacAlpine HS125 Biz jets) for up to 2 years before flying larger airliners to get them air minded. Now with MPL there is not even a requirement for solo flying. Most cadets do Mutual flying - not true solo work during their short Light Aircraft courses. Hi, My experience is that the quality or end product of MPL courses is quite different, depending on where you are. It is my impression that MPL courses offered in Europe enjoy a much better level of training compared to their counterparts for example in Asia. In this area, it is my understanding that an MPL course is mainly used to lower the costs of training. With the problems associated described above. In Europe though, I think costs and optimised preparation for the job as airline pilot in a multi-crew environment was the goal. And I would say that this has generally been achieved with the MPL course. At the airline where I work, Captains were quite skeptical about the new MPL FOs at the beginning when they joined the fleet. But they had to admit that the pilots were trained well and less training effeorts were needed during line introduction as they were already accustomed to the multi crew concept and its procedures. The problem with the MPL courses is, that they are not regulated enough. Airlines and Training Organisations are relatively free on how they want to design the course (e.g. types of aircraft used for training). Another problem I see with this type of training is the fact that an MPL pilot is in most cases backed up by his/her partner on the flight deck. While this is basically a good thing and standard practice when flying on bigger equipment, it can still be very useful to make the experience of flying alone and making your own decisions with no help from anyone else. flightwork.com - International Pilot Network |
Portal information:
At the moment there are 9 users online, thereof 1 registered user and 8 guests.
Today 2 registered users and 78 guests were already online.
Now online
User: njorogesimon82@gmail.com
flightwork.com has 5153 registered user, 435 topics and 473 answers. On the average 0.49 posts are written per day.
Today 2 registered users and 78 guests were already online.
Now online
User: njorogesimon82@gmail.com
flightwork.com has 5153 registered user, 435 topics and 473 answers. On the average 0.49 posts are written per day.