Bathman wrote:
…which at 30 quid per flying hour and 450 hours a year is no surprise…
Not really. The task you describe (VFR aerial work on a CPL) is one of the classic “hours building” schemes of the olden days. Just enough money for a hot meal every other day (and lifelong poverty should they get seriously ill) but with a prospect of landing a proper job once they have accumulated 1000 or 1500 hours. Which will take them anything between 3 and 5 years that way, while all those years having to live from 10k yearly income (gross!). With no chance of paying back the loan they took for their training or inviting their girlfriend to a movie.
This is history. Over and out. Unless companies doing aerial work can offer the same pay (at least by order of magnitude), job security and career prospects as the larger employers in the sector, they will not find new pilots. Not even bad ones. The same applies to bizjet operators and similar GA employers. Quite a few fresh pilots do not even consider working in that field. Either airline or nothing.
" right now I am flying with my third FO who comes straight from the flying school after an integrated ATPL course. With something like 150 to 200 hours total time. Each of those three was/is perfectly capable of handling the aeroplane and performing his duties"
And I’m sure they are. But I’m not looking for a cpl holder to do that. I’m looking for a cpl holder to fly a Cessna 150 to a point 150 miles away. Take some photos and return. Something that I would regard as a basic task.
Yet many are simply terrified of making such a flight. I would even go as far to say that the more money they have spent. The more prestigious the ATO that the less capable they are of making such a flight.
I suspect that now the airlines are well and truely hiring I’ll start to struggle to fill posts (which at 30 quid per flying hour and 450 hours a year is no surprise) But if we go back a few years I was unindated with applicants. I was also too soft as I never used to charge them for all the dual flights I had to do to get them upto speed. Which often included basic circuit detail. Yet airlines (and flying schools) charge them to look at their CV.
Probably the worst part has been when I’ve had tell some 20 year old wonder kid who has just spent 100 grand of their parents moneyto look eleswhere. As its got to the point where i simply cant afford to put any more of my time and money trying to get them upto speed.
While the increase in minimum hours before the CPL has led to modular students doing their Multi/IR ahead of the CPL, I might suggest that on average this has led to extra hours in advanced training and may have been a false saving, especially if the student, usually straight out of a Tecnam fails to secure a first time IR pass.
If a student can start the CPL first because they have the required PIC hours and total time hours, I would recommend doing the Multi/IR last.
The CPL remains a good standard with examiners testing airmanship through a variety of flight and emergency scenarios.
Martin wrote:
IIRC MCC is Multi-Crew Cooperation. I
Yes, that’s correct. When I did mine over 15 years ago, it was called “CCC” with the last “C” standing for “concept”…
172driver wrote:
In the back of your mind you know that there is a reset button and nobody will get harmed if you f*ck up massively.
Aside from the risk of being sacked and your dream going down the drain (and possibly being stuck with a loan on your neck). Simulators can be quite stressful if your career is riding on the results. Have you ever heard of a cruise relief pilot and the associated requirements?
what_next wrote:
MCC=Multi Crew Concept
IIRC MCC is Multi-Crew Cooperation. It’s part of ATPL training and it’s required for multi-pilot type ratings (and probably operations).
what_next wrote:
Do you, by “MCC”, perhaps mean “MPL”?
Yes, my bad. Fingers faster than brain……
Maybe it’s time to mandate a few hours each year for all professional pilots to fly some GA VFR. 
172driver wrote:
I have some first-hand experience with MCC ‘pilots’
Do you, by “MCC”, perhaps mean “MPL”? (MCC=Multi Crew Concept, a part of the ATPL training whereas MPL=Multi Pilot License, a license restricted to performing co-pilot duties in a multi-pilot environment).
Right now I am flying with my third FO who comes straight from the flying school after an integrated ATPL course. With something like 150 to 200 hours total time. Each of those three was/is perfectly capable of handling the aeroplane and performing his duties. His hand flying skills and instrument scan is probably better than mine, because he has had recent experience of hand-flying in IMC which I haven’t done for decades myself.
And by the way: Every airliner crash after AF447 – and there have been very few during the last two years which were the safest in commercial aviation ever – was either caused by or had experienced pilots in the cockpit (last year’s Germanwings crash apart which was the result of undetected mental illness).
Not bimble up and down the coast, but even so with the varying weather in FL, that would be more useful than engaging A/P at 400ft. But this is not my idea – the industry itself is coming to the conclusion that there’s a serious lack of physical flying skills in modern cockpits due to attrition. The more recent experience the pilots have from manual flying, the better we’re all off. Just look at Asiana – yes, ILS was out, but VASI sure as hell wasn’t. 4 reds during most of approach and the pilot didn’t think it was time do something? That just wouldn’t happen with a pilot who’s flown a lot of GA.
what_next wrote:
Yes, why not? What extra safety would the granny gain if that FO had bimbled up and down the Florida coast in a C152 for 100 hours? Airlines do a pretty good job when it comes to pairing inexperienced FOs with experienced training captains.
Which effectively turns your shiny B738 / A320 into a single-pilot operation. Great – not.
I have some first-hand experience with MCC ‘pilots’ (I use word with hesitation), who, as Bathman says, are basically unable to fly an airplane. Setting up the AP and all the various bells and whistles in a sim? Sure. Actually flying? No way. I also venture to say, that sim training doesn’t substitute for the real thing (and yes, I have been in real, full motion ones). In the back of your mind you know that there is a reset button and nobody will get harmed if you f*ck up massively. Now, getting into severe turbulence over some remote mountains in a C172 is a different experience altogether and IMHO makes you more appreciative of the medium you are operating in. Which may well have saved the AF447 guys and their pax.
