Still taking low timers?

Bae146 · Post by **Bae146** » Tue May 29, 2007 6:05 am

I had the confirmation yeasterday that 4 student of the CQFA have just been hired by Jazz they should start with the next gs.

Enjoy ...

wrc · Post by **wrc** » Tue May 29, 2007 6:45 am

Supply & demand, dumb luck and timing seem like everything in this business.

I can totally understand some guy with 2000 hours pulling off engine covers in YRB at -35c being a tad choked hearing about 200 hour guys jumping in an RJ. My understanding from the "Haliban" (some of whom I used to work with in the distant past) is that it's more of an experimental program.

I never got to touch a 'regional' with under 5000 hours and a jet with 10,000 but when the cycle boomed, upgraded on both under 2 years. Our company assures us it won't drop below the 2500hr minimums, but maybe Jazzs' projections show the inevitable and they'd prefer to fine tune a a small sample project rather then make big mistakes down the road when faced with the need for a large scale program.

Zatopec · Post by **Zatopec** » Wed May 30, 2007 1:33 pm

Bae146, out of curiosity, what is your source?

Brick Head · Post by **Brick Head** » Thu May 31, 2007 8:39 am

International Civil Aviation Organization
Air Navigation Bureau (ANB)

FLIGHT SAFETY (FLS) SECTION

PERSONNEL LICENSING

THE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs) COVER THE FOLLOWING TOPICS:

Multi-Crew Pilot Licence (MPL)

What is the MPL?

The MPL allows a pilot to exercise the privileges of a co-pilot in a commercial air transportation on multi-crew aeroplanes. It provides the aviation community with an opportunity to train pilots directly for co-pilot duties. It is a new licence that has been introduced in addition to the existing pilot licences defined in Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing.

The licence focuses on ab initio airline pilot training. MPL training and assessment will be competency-based and involve a multi-crew environment and threat and error management from the onset. It provides for greater use of flight simulation training devices and include mandatory upset training. At this stage, only aeroplanes are considered for this new licence. The details of the requirements for the licence are contained in Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing and in the Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Training (PANS-TRG). These documents outline the minimum international Standard for the implementation of the MPL by any State; they can be purchased directly from ICAO through the Document Sales Unit.

Will the MPL be recognized by Contracting States?

As a licence defined by ICAO the MPL will be recognized by all ICAO Contracting States even by those that may decide not to establish an MPL as a licence within their own States. More details on the recognition of licences by other States can be found on the FAQ on "International recognition of flight crew licences".

What is a multi-crew aeroplane?

It is an aeroplane that requires a flight crew of at least two pilots. One of them is the pilot-in-command (the captain) and the other is the co-pilot (or first officer). All jet air transport aeroplanes and the vast majority of turbine powered air transport aircraft and business jet are multi-crew aeroplanes. The definition in Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing states that it is: "an aircraft required to be operated with a co-pilot as specified in the flight manual or by the air operator certificate."

Do I have to hold a MPL to be a co-pilot on a muti-crew aeroplane?

No, the co-pilot on a multi-crew aeroplane can hold either a MPL or a CPL endorsed with an instrument rating and a type rating on a multi-crew aircraft.

What are the differences between the CPL and the MPL?

For the purposes of operating multi-crew aircraft, the privileges of a MPL are equivalent to those of CPL endorsed with an instrument rating and a type rating on a multi-crew aircraft. However, and because the MPL is geared toward operation of multi-crew airplane, an MPL pilot cannot generally fly on single pilot aeroplane without meeting additional requirements. For example, MPL holders cannot exercise the privileges of a CPL and instrument ratings on single pilot aeroplane without meeting specific actual flight time and flight instruction requirements.

A number of MPL courses may be a modification of the current JAA frozen ATPL or the Transport Canada and FAA CPL/Multi-engine training, but it is expected that the majority will follow the guidance proposed in the Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Training (PANS-TRG) document.

What are the minimum flight hours required for the MPL?

The ICAO Standard for the MPL specifies 240 hours as the minimum number of actual and simulated flight hours performing the functions of the pilot flying and the pilot non-flying. However, the Standard does not specify the breakdown between actual and simulated flight hours and thus allow part of the training curriculum that was traditionally conducted on aeroplane to be done on flight simulation training devices (FSTDs). However, there is a requirement that the applicant meets all the actual flying time for a private pilot licence plus additional actual flying time in instrument, night flying and upset recovery.

Why was the MPL established?

The MPL was established to respond to the growing demand in the aviation training community that felt that the current regulatory regime that dictated a large number of flying hours in solo and on a smaller aircraft was not the most efficient and safe way to train pilots for copilot duties on jet transport aircraft.

Further, there was some perceived negative training in the apprenticeship model that was first developed for flight training in the post second world war era. A number of training organizations and airlines were adamant that modern training techniques and research into the use of modern training devices such as flight simulation training devices needed to be recognized within the ICAO licensing structure. The ICAO Air Navigation Commission formed a Flight Crew Licensing and Training Panel to explore the options and opportunities to address the shortcomings of some current licensing requirements. The competency-based concept and the MPL licence were the outcome of that panel's deliberations.

How can the MPL be implemented?

ICAO has developed the Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Training (PANS-TRG) document to support the implementation of the MPL and will monitor developments in this area through a proof of concept programme. This programme will involve stakeholders from regulatory bodies and industry. In addition, an Air Training Organization must meet the prescribed organizational standards which are also outlined in Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing and the Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Training (PANS-TRG).

What is the status of the MPL regulatory provisions?

The ICAO Council adopted the provisions related to the MPL as part of Amendment 167 to Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing on 10 March 2006. The new provisions will become applicable on 23 November 2006.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#31

seafeye · Post by **seafeye** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:27 am

Experience is worth much more than you give it credit.
just talking on the radio is a skill learned over time.
Knowing what is common and uncommon can mean life and death.
Sitting in a new airplane is overwelming. After being there for 3000hrs
it is a whole lot less daunting. Just because you read the manual
doesn't mean you can fly the airplane.

spitfire 2 · Post by **spitfire 2** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:53 am

Just a few random thoughts and questions.

It's obvious that many of you feel that these individules are not qualified to be FO's on a dash 8 operating ILS to ILS, but rather should work up north for a few years. So my thoughts on this are then, is it also fair to say that a lawyer, engineer, doctor who has completed his/her education is not qualified to work for a major firm in yyz/yyc. What's the diffrence between them? I have many friends that have these proffessions that would be insulted to have their peers tell them they dont want to work with them because they are children with no life skills, communication skills, decision skills, and that they have to go up north, get work experience, to be qualified to work for a major firm. As a pilot who got my first flying job up north flying around King Air, I was coached by my captains, and there where some hairy situations. So why do so many of you feel that it's unreasonable to have to coach these pilots? The point is THEY HAVE TO BE COACH whether its up north or down south.

Like previously mentioned on another blog, to all of you that aspire, admire, and respect senior Air Canada Captains, and hope to one day hold the same position. If you ever have the oppurtunity to talk to or know one personally, think it is in your best interest to keep your opinions about 200hr guy/girls getting jobs as F/O's on a dash 8 to yourself. Lets not forget that all of these Captains where hired with Air Canada with the same time, same experience, 200-500hrs. There are a few differences though, the 1st is they actually where 18ys old living at home and the A/C they where trained on had a faster approach speed than a dash8.

Your right though on one thing, it is all about money.

GroundSpeed · Post by **GroundSpeed** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 7:42 pm

[quote="linebacker35"]I dont believe experiance(time and real world experiance) means that that makes someone a better pilot.

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ccbor · Post by **ccbor** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 9:32 am

Are they still taking low timers?
I'm not sure?!
I am current with 6700 hours of which 2500 hrs are EFIS and RVSM experienced. Still no call, (well over 2 years applied) but I've noticed that they looked at my resume again.. it shot up from 9 to 10 looks.

not gettin' any younger here. lol

GL to all

Bor

Traf · Post by **Traf** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 12:31 pm

The college thing is a GO!!! 8 puppies will start this fall. Yeeeehaw!!! Daycare has begun!!!

SQ · Post by SQ » Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:09 pm

spitfire 2 wrote:Lets not forget that all of these Captains where hired with Air Canada with the same time, same experience, 200-500hrs.

funny to read that : I asked an air canada 767 CPT , 20 years in AC and 13000 hrs of flying what he was thinking about those rumors concerning hiring low timer.

his answer : "when I began at AC requirements were CPL/ M/IFR. Anybody can set a FMS and press autopilot -on- just after T/O at 400ft. Nowadays the thing is that is a top job and people want you to work hard before...Hours or not, when you realize you're in trouble, it's nearly too late"

flyinphil · Post by **flyinphil** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 5:17 am

spitfire 2 wrote:.... senior Air Canada Captains, and hope to one day hold the same position. If you ever have the oppurtunity to talk to or know one personally, think it is in your best interest to keep your opinions about 200hr guy/girls getting jobs as F/O's on a dash 8 to yourself. Lets not forget that all of these Captains where hired with Air Canada with the same time, same experience, 200-500hrs. There are a few differences though, the 1st is they actually where 18ys old living at home and the A/C they where trained on had a faster approach speed than a dash8.

Not really an accurate statement. The pilot pool at that time was formed by all types but the low time guys were selected after the high time pool diminished. Several profiles came and went with management. There were periods when highly experienced guys were in vogue, military guys, educated guys etc. The low time individuals were and are again an economic and experience backstop position.

It was also rare at that time for a 3-500 hour individual to occupy a flying seat. Most were SO's with only the top few in any class seeing the right seat in a DC-9 at a junior base.

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 7:29 am

spitfire 2 wrote:Just a few random thoughts and questions.

It's obvious that many of you feel that these individules are not qualified to be FO's on a dash 8 operating ILS to ILS, but rather should work up north for a few years. So my thoughts on this are then, is it also fair to say that a lawyer, engineer, doctor who has completed his/her education is not qualified to work for a major firm in yyz/yyc. What's the diffrence between them? I have many friends that have these proffessions that would be insulted to have their peers tell them they dont want to work with them because they are children with no life skills, communication skills, decision skills, and that they have to go up north, get work experience, to be qualified to work for a major firm. As a pilot who got my first flying job up north flying around King Air, I was coached by my captains, and there where some hairy situations. So why do so many of you feel that it's unreasonable to have to coach these pilots? The point is THEY HAVE TO BE COACH whether its up north or down south.

Like previously mentioned on another blog, to all of you that aspire, admire, and respect senior Air Canada Captains, and hope to one day hold the same position. If you ever have the oppurtunity to talk to or know one personally, think it is in your best interest to keep your opinions about 200hr guy/girls getting jobs as F/O's on a dash 8 to yourself. Lets not forget that all of these Captains where hired with Air Canada with the same time, same experience, 200-500hrs. There are a few differences though, the 1st is they actually where 18ys old living at home and the A/C they where trained on had a faster approach speed than a dash8.

Your right though on one thing, it is all about money.

Hi Spitfire

Good argument and if I may, I would like to respond to your analogy of Doctors and Lawyers. The pilot training system in Canada leaves a lot to be desired. A pilot gets the bare minimum in training really and most of his /her skills are aquired via on the job training. A Doctor will spend a few years as an intern after graduating from med school as will a lawyer, spend some time articling for a law firm between getting coffee for the partners.

We have lawyers and Doctors in the country who hold ATPL credentials. Does that qualify them to jump into an airline seat? In Transport Canadas' eyes, yes, because they have met the minimum standard, which is pretty friggin low. The industry however, has until recently with Jazz, expected a higher standard which usually comes with experience. If I had a law degree, do you think Toilette and Douchebag would let me represent their prized client? Not without proving myself first.

So I don't really see a huge difference in the professions, like you suggest.
A Seneca grad should have no trouble flying from an ILS to an ILS but this is the easy part. What will that person be like when everything goes dark and his helmet is on fire with no experience to draw from? That being said, I doubt they will be holding the left seat any time soon. Lets just hope the Captain doesn't become incapacitated.

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:54 am

Great reply JS.

DAVE THE RAVE · Post by **DAVE THE RAVE** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:50 pm

I can't figure some you out. You think that gaining experience can only be done on some king air or B1900 up north . Experience can also be gained by sitting in the right seat of a jet and playing an active part in the airline operation and gaining first hand knowledge of the environment.

Like I've said on many previous posts. It works in Europe. Brand new flight school grads getting a shot at an A320 or 737 ect. You don't need 4-5000 hours to fly a big jet.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:05 pm

I can't figure some you out. You think that gaining experience can only be done on some king air or B1900 up north . Experience can also be gained by sitting in the right seat of a jet and playing an active part in the airline operation and gaining first hand knowledge of the environment.

Exactly.

And the experience is operation specific.

The Raven · Post by **The Raven** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:10 am

I've been flying with some experienced first officers lately who have a very poor attitude. It shows in their SOP's and to be honest, in their hands and feet ability. I often wondered how they would react when in a true emergency.

Conversely, all the Seneca grads I have flown with are keen to learn more, have a positive attitude, and most importantly know the AOM and the company's SOP's inside out.

After careful deliberation....give me a Seneca grad anytime.

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:53 am

DAVE THE RAVE wrote:I can't figure some you out. You think that gaining experience can only be done on some king air or B1900 up north . Experience can also be gained by sitting in the right seat of a jet and playing an active part in the airline operation and gaining first hand knowledge of the environment.

Like I've said on many previous posts. I works in Europe. Brand new flight school grads getting a shot at an A320 or 737 ect. You don't need 4-5000 hours to fly a big jet.

Dave you are correct, it does work in Europe. There are however, some differences. First of all, the licensing standards are higher there. You cannot hold an ATPL by flying in the right seat of a buck 50 within the circuit for instance. Canada has always had this minimum standard sort of attitude. Having said that, Seneca is not the minimum standard.

Going straight into the right seat of an airline could be done, agreed. I have flown in the past at Air Canada with several guys who were hired right out of school.They could do the job sure, but it was painfully obvious to me, the first officer, that these guys had never seen the interior of an airplane that didn't belong to Air Canada. The guys who had other experiences to draw from, I found were a bit better suited to deal with situations that hadn't been pre described in the book.

You don't need experience to follow an SOP, any idiot can do that. ( some still have trouble ) It is being equipped to deal with stuff that isn't in the SOP that really counts. There is the old saying that an SOP is a guide to the wise and a bible to the idiot.

This is a good debate with good arguments on both sides. You and Cat Driver have made some excellent points supporting such an idea and I have to agree with what you say. I just can't help but think that here in Canada, unlike Europe, it is not so much the ability of the candidate that the airline is concerned about but rather how much they will not have to pay a brand new college grad. In fact, don't be surprised to see that a job at Jazz becomes an addition to the course and students will be paying to be there. It is this motivation that concerns me. After all, they can't really ask for more wage cuts, so what is the next best thing? Presto.......we have a college grad program. Something doesn't smell right.

The Raven · Post by **The Raven** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:01 am

Jaques,

I have 2 friends that joined British Airways 15 years ago under the cadet training program. Neither of them had any flying experience prior to joining BA. They were sent to Prestwick and taught how to fly in Cherokees and Senecas. A year and a half after starting their training they had a grand total of 175 hours and were thrown into a 757 simulator. 2 weeks later they are out flying the line in a 757.

British Airways has an excellent safety record.

The system works.

By the way, they are both 777 Captains now.

The Raven

ps..I suppose the ideal candidate would be a Seneca grad with a bit of experience.

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:25 am

Raven

I am familiar with the cadet program at B.A . Lufthansa and KLM also have cadet programs that are successful. I am not against such a program so long as it is done correctly. This is where I have my doubts with regard to Jazz and Seneca.

Jazz wants cheap labor, Seneca wants increased enrollment, I don't see much thought progressing beyond these mandates. It has been my experience here in Canada that most things default to the lowest common denominator. ( hence why one leaves flight school to learn how to fly, example: how they teach a basic climb or descent with regard to power and attitude at school, is not how how one flies any aircraft other than in school! )

If I thought Jazz was going to follow the European model, I wouldn't be arguing this point. The fact is, those cadet programs are very expensive. It is my belief that Jazz is simply going to follow the American system where they get college kids paying for a seat at an airline. Thats it, thats all. I can already imagine the ads on the back cover of Canadian Aviation Magazine.

Generally speaking, you cannot compare the quality of a North American cadet program with those in Europe.

SQ · Post by SQ » Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:46 am

Jaques Strappe wrote: It has been my experience here in Canada that most things default to the lowest common denominator.

If I thought Jazz was going to follow the European model, I wouldn't be arguing this point.

Generally speaking, you cannot compare the quality of a North American cadet program with those in Europe.

Jacques & raven you are exactly bringing nuances where it is necessary and thank you for debating in a cosntructive way.

I'm gonna bring another notion in the subject : still considering low timer hiring, would the age or past professional experience a way to have young pilots (young in hours flown) but mature people willing to work and learn before thinking they're kings of the world cause they "fly" a 767 ?

finaly, is not the danger in hiring young pilot than mature male and female with previous profesional experience, even with 250 hrs ?

Traf · Post by **Traf** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 8:21 am

I can't figure some you out. You think that gaining experience can only be done on some king air or B1900 up north . Experience can also be gained by sitting in the right seat of a jet and playing an active part in the airline operation and gaining first hand knowledge of the environment.

Dave, read what you posted very carefully. You are correct in that experience can be gained in any aircraft and any situation. The difference in learning it in a 1900 or King Air is the experience is already there when you get to a Jet vs learnign as you are flying the Jet.
Big difference!

I also agree with JS that there are some good cadet programs out there but Jazz is not going to be interested in that. They are looking at saving money and nothing else. This so-called pilot shoratge is something they have cooked up so that they can go knocking on the college kids doors. They will push this thing through no matter what it takes and like JS said, soon jazz will be on the back of all the magazines advertised as a CASH buy in option from some o fthe colleges in Canada.

They should make Sigma-SIx and all their family members fly in the jumpseat for the 1st 100 hours of each college kids Jazz career. That would change the bastards minds in a hurry!!!!

Dark Helmet · Post by **Dark Helmet** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 8:36 am

Good points JS & SQ.

Experince to me is like a credit rating. If you give a 18 year high school grad a mortgage on a home for $400,000. How will he or she react. s/he may be responsibe enough to handle it, or may have difficulites because they have not been in that situation before, one can never know. Now put in a 30 year old with a credit rating under his/her belt. Can they handle that?......
Again who knows. But at least s/he has that past credit reputation that banks can look into to make their decision.

This is not wether or not a 200 hour pilot can do this just as well as a 2000 hour pilot. It is wether Jazz should do go ahead with this program. they should not because.

1. There is no real pilot shortage. If there were, don't you think AC, WJ AT, ZOOM, Sky, would be looking at the same thing.

2. Assuming there is a pilot shortage: Do you think WJ, AC, AT, would still be looking a hiring 200 hr pilots.....No. They would take them from Jazz first.

Now for the Eourpean gents, Let me ask you this:

1. Is a cadet pilot with BA, or Lufthansa living in their parents basement, or their car after graduatuon because thay can't make a liveable wage starting out?

2. Someone who graduates from BA as a cadet pilot. Can s/he leave the airline after 6 months and go to Lufthansa, or Cathay, etc.

If you answer yes to both. How do you feel about that? Be honest.

It is easy for you guys to preach to us about how great and safe this program is. I guarantee you would be beating a different tune if you were flying here in Canada.

flyinphil · Post by **flyinphil** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:12 pm

Lets call a spade a spade. At 200 hours, you're not even qualified to wipe the sweat off a pitcher of beer.

The company is gambling the nonexistant experience against the odds that nothing bad will happen. I am sure this has been done in consultation with statistics, insurance underwriters and lawyers. There is no comparing a 200 hour civilian pilot to his/her military contemporary.

I Hope nothing goes wrong

The Raven · Post by **The Raven** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:40 pm

flyinphil wrote:Lets call a spade a spade. At 200 hours, you're not even qualified to wipe the sweat off a pitcher of beer.

The company is gambling the nonexistant experience against the odds that nothing bad will happen. I am sure this has been done in consultation with statistics, insurance underwriters and lawyers. There is no comparing a 200 hour civilian pilot to his/her military contemporary.

I Hope nothing goes wrong

Yours is exactly the attitude of why I prefer not to fly with the so called "experienced" military pilot. Give me a 200 hour college grad any day as my First Officer. He/she comes with no attitude, no baggage, no perceived God-like abilities. Just a desire to do the First Officer job safely and efficiently.

And yes, I have flown with both. College grads win, hands down.

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 2:01 pm

flyinphil wrote:.............. There is no comparing a 200 hour civilian pilot to his/her military contemporary.

I Hope nothing goes wrong

I am not going to jump into the civilian vs military debate because there are just as many wankers in both but that has to be one of the most arrogant statements I have read on here.