Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

How to get into an airliner RHS with almost no experience of flying yourself

I asked the owner of a local flight school why he does not rent out his twin engine Piper. Then I asked if he would rent it to someone who just did pass his ATPL test in it at his school. He said definitely not. ;-)

Then came my own IR check. The inspector did show up and said we have to test you very well. You will then fly with the rating all on your own, no more line training etc.

Last Edited by Sebastian_G at 01 Sep 15:55
www.ing-golze.de
EDAZ

Wow, this is scary. Although the 1500 hours mandated in the US may be excessive, I know what I prefer.

172driver wrote:

Wow, this is scary. Although the 1500 hours mandated in the US may be excessive, I know what I prefer.

If it really makes a difference only time will tell. It will probably bring more good than bad. All in all I strongly believe that especially the larger operators in the US are benchmark leading worldwide on how to “airline”.

I do see issues in europe because of “minimum value” flight training shifting almost exclusively to profit oriented entities paired with commercial pressure at the operators pushing down on pilots. In the past there were some notable exceptions in the form of airline run flight training outfits, even more in the past the airlines paid for training.

ATPL / IFR Instructor
Europe

The 1500hrs US policy came after the famous Buffalo crash.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

The 1500hrs US policy came after the famous Buffalo crash.

Since the F/O in that case had substantially more hours than that and the captain more than twice as much, I don’t see how that policy could have prevented the Colgan crash.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

This is an interesting part of the abstract of a survey about the MPL done in 2016 by Lund University, Sweden. (Lund University runs an airline pilot training programme.)

As per the results MPL pilots overall perform well in regards to the competencies related to application of procedures and automated flight, while situational awareness and workload management seem to be more challenging for them. Manual flying skills were highlighted as another challenging competency. If the weaker areas should be addressed with an increase of time spent in small aircraft, as suggested by many captains and MPL graduates, or a change in how that time and training is performed in the simulators, is a question that the industry should explore further. The same goes for the most effective way to train manual flying skills; research is needed to decide if the best outcome comes from flying manually in a small aircraft or by removing automation more or less completely for flight training in simulators.

Line Captains was the most sceptical target group towards the MPL throughout the study, while regulators and managers were by far the most supportive group. In many groups, especially among the Line Captains, there were individuals who seemed to have been left outside of the loop in regards to information about the MPL. They had been offered limited information not only about the MPL concept, but also about what to expect from MPL pilots. More importantly they had limited opportunities to share their concerns in any structured manner within their organisations. From the data it was clear that there has been, and still are, shortcomings in provision of information on MPL in many of the organisations involved in delivering MPL training.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

I don’t see how that policy could have prevented the Colgan crash.

The FO had a CPL. at that time only the captain required a ATP, the same as EASA currently. Now all crew members have to have the ATP so normally you need 1500. Though it is possible i believe to do a restricted ATP with the right background still I think 1000hrs or so. Also your training records for applicable professional check rides are available to prospective employers, this I believe all came out of that crash. The captain had failed several check rides over his career. So it was not the hours as such but the adequacy of both the checks and the training itself at the regional carrier level that got a lot attention.

Last Edited by Ted at 01 Sep 23:26

Ted wrote:

The FO had a CPL. at that time only the captain required a ATP, the same as EASA currently. Now all crew members have to have the ATP so normally you need 1500.

So the requirement is not really to have 1500 h, but to have an ATPL which normally requires 1500 h?

Also your training records for applicable professional check rides are available to prospective employers, this I believe all came out of that crash.

That seems more relevant.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Top of the list:
Air France Flight 447 – a similar accident caused by an aerodynamic stall
Airborne Express Flight 827 – a similar accident caused by a deep stall
China Airlines Flight 140 – a similar accident caused by an aerodynamic stall
China Airlines Flight 676 – a similar accident caused by an aerodynamic stall
West Caribbean Airways Flight 708 – a similar accident caused by a deep stall

Line Captains was the most sceptical target group towards the MPL

It would be interesting to get more statistics on this. Some airlines prefer MPL, not for economic reasons, but because of the stricter training regime and records. Each lesson is competency assessed, and has more scenario based conditions. Also the selection process to enter an MPL programme is stricter.

The airline can track training from the start, and it is not unusual that there is competency based failures at different stages of the training.

Line captains, a significant minority of which might be ex services where outside the fast jet single crew, all operations are MPL, today understand the MPL training concept and appreciate the philosophy.

For the student the main advantages are: they are learning, and learning how to learn, multi crew flows and SOPs from early on, and in particular their airline SOP; they have much more training in a multi crew Jet SIm; they have a job at the end of training (obviously pre CV19, as you are now are likely to be in a pool waiting for some normality to return); they get a TR for the price of an integrated MEIR.

The MEIR single crew is likely to have a wider range of talent, and some schools with limited training routes can bash away until the test route is learned by rote. There is certainly more solo PIC experience, around three times that of an MPL (not aware of an MPL without some solo PIC training), including the CPL qualifying cross country.

Both training philosophies have their strengths and weaknesses, but the higher accountability in training to the airline sponsor, may be why some airlines prefer MPL.

CAT121 does have a better safety record, but it is in the order of say 1 in 30 million over, say 1 in 10 million.

Oxford (EGTK)
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top