I got a bad feeling about this year...

[Shiny Side Up]

The military tends to be very structured and
efficient about this sort of thing.

As I am fond of mentioning, the guy flying the
low-altitude aerobatics in the F-18 at an airshow
near you this year, almost certainly doesn't have
enough flight time to fly a king air from edmonton
to calgary. Straight and level must be pretty tough.

I'd submit to you that the military trains only a small fraction of pilots in the free world (something to be said for centralized economic planning...), and a fair ammount of their efficiency and structure revolves around their selection ability.

[Colonel Sanders]

selection ability

Not sure I agree that the military snags all the superstars
and only the donkeys that couldn't make the grade end
up in civilian flight training.

Sure, there are some spectacularly slow learners in the
civilian flight training world. But they aren't the majority.

The vast majority of civilian flight training students could
really benefit from improved flight training, which they
aren't going to get.

So instead they are taught incorrectly, badly and inefficiently
and over a long period of time, they hopefully unlearn the
bad stuff they were taught, and teach themselves what
they need to know.

This is why, for example, you need a thousand hours to
fly a C337.

[seasonaldriver]

Don't need a thousand hours as much as 200 hours MPIC. You an have 7000 hours and ifyoudon'thave that MPIC time, Good Luck!

[Colonel Sanders]

If you can't learn how to fly a push-pull C337 in
10 hrs of dual, it doesn't matter how many hundreds
of hours you spend driving around by yourself with
both engines running.

Again, really poor flight instruction.

[Cat Driver]

If you can't learn how to fly a push-pull C337 in
10 hrs of dual,

Why would it take 10 hours?

[Colonel Sanders]

I'm being generous, .. Admittedly the
C337 was specifically developed by Cessna
as a sort of twin-engine 172 that wouldn't
require much in the way of skill from it's
pilot when an engine failed, because of the
lack of asymmetric thrust.

Practically speaking, I think I could check
out a new C337 pilot over the phone. It's
that easy.

[Shiny Side Up]

Not sure I agree that the military snags all the superstars
and only the donkeys that couldn't make the grade end
up in civilian flight training.

Sure, there are some spectacularly slow learners in the
civilian flight training world. But they aren't the majority.

The vast majority of civilian flight training students could
really benefit from improved flight training, which they
aren't going to get.

Of course not, but the system we use to train military pilots by its nature weeds out a lot of the inefficient students right off the start. After all, no one applies to the military and then tells them, "yeah, but with my busy schedule I can only train on weekends". They're only going to get folks who are commited - which is a large portion of doing things efficiently. There's lots of smart guys taking training in the civilian world, but outside of air cadets its pretty rare for them to submit to doing it on a regimented basis. Secondly out of all of the applicants who are commited to the military you're going to cull them so you would generally end up with your best physical specimens. No training people hard of hearing, half blind or any of that stuff, not to mention some basic aptitude testing which is completely absent from civillian training. You're also not going to be afraid of washing out candidates who despite the selection process, still just maybe aren't cut out for it, or just aren't the best of the best.

I will also say that while a majority of the civillian trainees aren't your "spectacularly slow learners" (though there is an alarming ammount of these, not sure what your experience with the human race has been) students by and large flock to inefficient flight training and willingly (and knowingly) suffer through poor flight training. As it is, the consumer driven free market isn't doing its job in producing the best product by market demand.

[CellPh2]

Next you take him and put him on Citation X and expect him to manage aircraft energy on a sharp STAR with n/o spoilers and with no VNAV assistant – good luck.

So learning energy management depends on how well you adapt to glass? Anyone with the willingness to learn from the guy beside him transitioning to bigger faster aircraft (with all the bells and whistles) can catch on to FMS's, glass, autopilots, energy management. Lets not be silly here.

[N1 Green]

Next you take him and put him on Citation X and expect him to manage aircraft energy on a sharp STAR with n/o spoilers and with no VNAV assistant – good luck.

So learning energy management depends on how well you adapt to glass? Anyone with the willingness to learn from the guy beside him transitioning to bigger faster aircraft (with all the bells and whistles) can catch on to FMS's, glass, autopilots, energy management. Lets not be silly here.

What are you trying to say? You might want read all of my posts from before. No flying G1000 will not totaly contribute to understand how to avoid “DRAG REQUIERD” message on the FMC, but again, (repeating same words from before): Flying IFR, lots of IFR – PIC, multi , with the combination of glass cockpit would give you the right tools to MANAGE an advance cockpit down the road.
Why British Airways would close their direct hiring into F/O and CAPT and would only hire cadets?
You know why? 1. They can match the right personality to the job. 2. they can train their cadets with a big focusing on how to fly multi crew glass better.

As I wrote before: severe accidents are sourced at cockpit management mistakes which has direct connecting to the personality of the crew, maybe their training.

[CellPh2]

What's your experience level with respect to flying time N1 Green (if you don't mind me asking)

[Chuck Ellsworth]

What's your experience level with respect to flying time N1 Green (if you don't mind me asking)

Yeh, sometimes we can get a better idea of why pilots have certain ideas if we know their history, flying like everything else in life molds us from our environment.

He had a good point in this comment.

Cat Driver,
(I feel stupid to call you like that, I wish everyone on this forum will use their real name one day.)

If nothing else it gives more credibility to ones posts.

[N1 Green]

I would like to tell you, maybe later on. At this point let’s keep it unclear. Once I’ll tell you I believe that your responses to this matter would change.
Without you knowing, I get to hear your real opinion– at least that’s what I believe/feel.

I assume you fly commercially, and for many years.

I am visiting this forum on a daily basis since 2006-7, but never signed up as I knew it would kill my free time once Ill start to post here.

I flow in Europe, Middle East and the States. Not a lot at all – but did some flying. I am still having difficulties to understand why Canadian pilots needs 2500 hours to get a job as a corporate FO (C560ish). Is it an issued with the initial training?
Is it an issue with companies not putting efforts to properly screen the candidates?
Because in some places – Europe/Middle East – they send you over to a private personality evaluation facility where they test you. And I am not talking about questions like “how many lines do you see in this photo” or “tell us about a good thing you did”. Not at all, I am talking about sitting in a group of 6-7 people and having a normal conversation, later on given a group mission and trying to get it done, from the side, a panel of psychiatrists analyze it. Later on they analyze your hand writing and other things.

So why to ask for 2500 hours? Is it just an old method of young pilots education by saying – go work hard somewhere and talk to us when you got the hours.
Let’s FACE IT: by doing that (by hiring Navajo FO with 1500 hours) they are creating a side effect called “aviation abusing” It starts when you work on the ramp for 11$ without knowing when and if you will get your chance, and it’s ending up by signing all kind of bonds and other life limiting contracts.

Here is a thought::
A guy gets his PPL… build 150 hours and starts his CPL (just like we all did). After getting his CPL – go MIFR. THEN, Instead of putting extra $$ on getting your class 4, or instead of going to work the ramp at MOSES Aviation, stay in the big city, get a NORMAL job and work for the next 24 months. With the $$ your making, rent a piston multi with some glass avionics, and fly IFR ONLY. Don’t be afraid of the IFR system, file and fly IFR only.
Fly to the States, fly at night, get some oxygen and fly 15000-16000.. plan yourself some quality long cross countries. In other words: this is your 2nd time building adventure (the first on was 2 years ago when you worked on your CPL).

In this case, with the combination of 703 operations that screen their candidates and the fact that this 400 hr guy flow some Multi PIC , it should lower the hours needed to fly right seat B200 from 1000-1500 to 400-500. And maybe lower the multi rent cost.
I visited some flying clubs in the Netherlands and It was amazing to see young guys practicing on a twin DA42 with G1000, flying into busy airspaces IFR only.

[Shiny Side Up]

Here is a thought::
A guy gets his PPL… build 150 hours and starts his CPL (just like we all did). After getting his CPL – go MIFR. THEN, Instead of putting extra $$ on getting your class 4, or instead of going to work the ramp at MOSES Aviation, stay in the big city, get a NORMAL job and work for the next 24 months. With the $$ your making, rent a piston multi with some glass avionics, and fly IFR ONLY. Don’t be afraid of the IFR system, file and fly IFR only.
Fly to the States, fly at night, get some oxygen and fly 15000-16000.. plan yourself some quality long cross countries. In other words: this is your 2nd time building adventure (the first on was 2 years ago when you worked on your CPL).

My question would be why don't people do more time building like what you suggest in your "second time building adventure" during the first one?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Teaching someone to go fron zero to the right seat of a jet is becoming more prevalent in the world of airline flying.

I have mixed emotions about the subject because I don't think we really have enough data yet to really compare it to the route of working your way up small to larger simple to complex.

I was fortunate I never had to work the ramp or office, my first real flying job outside of flying for the school where I started was in Aerial Application.

The training was intense and the skills I learned molded me for the rest of my career which was about as varied as one can get.

I never ever had any problem learning new types of flying machines nor their systems, however the change from steam to glass was the easiest.

My one regret was I stayed in the industry to long, life outside of aviation was what I should have experienced years sooner than I did.

Oh well thanks to the Doctors in Amsterdam I finally found a means to escape the prison I had been in.

[N1 Green]

Ill be at the Rotterdam Airport this July, if by any chance you'r around - you are invited for a local green VFR flight over the flat land.

[trey kule]

As I wrote before: severe accidents are sourced at cockpit management mistakes which has direct connecting to the personality of the crew, maybe their training.

Can you provide your reference for making such a claim?

The reason some of the European airlines are hiring low time pilots or have cadet programs is, I believe because they do not foresee them in command positions for decades. Lufthansa had a program like this almost 30 years go. It did not work out well. They ended up rehiring their retires to sit in the cockpit as consultants.
The other reason, of course, is lower entry requirements means ultimately lower pay.

The problem that faces any of these schemes, is that it takes years to evaluate their success or recognize any errors in the original assumptions. I have to agree with Cat. We shall see how it works out.

As to the Canadian on demand charter folks. Their requirements seem to change all the time. The sense I get is they are based not on suitability to safely and efficiently fly the plane, but on the experience level in the market when they are hiring.

As to the comments about a337. Take a bit of time and search the accident reports on the FAA website. They actually had to put a big light in them so the pilot could tell the back engine was not running and attempt a takeoff with the front engine only ( apparently some pilots could not discern the difference in the rate of acceleration )though the reality is . the "they are just a big 172" crowd seemed to have actually have been attempting one engine take offs. An engine purposely turned off in flight to save fuel. And forgetting that retracting the gear after takeoff has a profound effect on the climb rate when retracting. The perception that they are somehow not really a twin is misleading. Other than the lack of asymmetric thrust, they are a twin in every other way. Lots of people dead who did not believe that.

There is no question glass is nice, but particularly at the beginning stages, I sometimes get the feeling that there are so many interesting things to look at inside the cockpit that students never look outside. A rather poor habit. I not so long ago had a pair of youngins attempting an approach ( separate incidents) in a wicked crosswind. When asked what the wind was doing, neither had paid attention to the airport advisory, or....looked at the windsock...their previous sole source was the G1000, and in each case, the info on this flight was not there for them.. Because they both graduated from the same flight school, and independently gave the same reason, and were pretty sharp pilots, I view this as a training failure. They had never flown in anything but a glass cockpit from day one. No one told them that if you actually looked outside the cockpit you could find out what the wind was doing.
Instructors that want to wear big boy pants and play pretend airline pilot instead of teaching the basics.
Now ask a float pilot about the wind. They look at waves, smoke, laundry on the clothesline, trees bending....adapting to glass is just another level for them..not a sole source of information. When things go a bit astray with the cockpit systems, experience goes a long way.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Ill be at the Rotterdam Airport this July, if by any chance you'r around - you are invited for a local green VFR flight over the flat land.

Thanks, the last time I flew in Rotterdam it was from the airport to the river and about two hours later took off from the river and went back to the airport.

It was in October of 2005, it is amazing how fast time passes.

[N1 Green]

Here is a thought::
A guy gets his PPL… build 150 hours and starts his CPL (just like we all did). After getting his CPL – go MIFR. THEN, Instead of putting extra $$ on getting your class 4, or instead of going to work the ramp at MOSES Aviation, stay in the big city, get a NORMAL job and work for the next 24 months. With the $$ your making, rent a piston multi with some glass avionics, and fly IFR ONLY. Don’t be afraid of the IFR system, file and fly IFR only.
Fly to the States, fly at night, get some oxygen and fly 15000-16000.. plan yourself some quality long cross countries. In other words: this is your 2nd time building adventure (the first on was 2 years ago when you worked on your CPL).

My question would be why don't people do more time building like what you suggest in your "second time building adventure" during the first one?

Some people do, but rarely in Canada, is it more common in the States to see an 80hr guy working on his IFR before working on his CPL. Most students only fly IFR in Canada with their Instructor. Most facilities won’t even allow you to rent and go IFR in Canada.
Also there is the issue of Flight Training facility VS flight Club. In Canada most places rent aircrafts under the FTU operation, means you usually get to fly school aircrafts and for every flight you need to get a sign out and go through the school procedures, where in the flying club platform you take the key’s and go. For a low timer it is better to rent from a school as it’s safer. But a guy with CPL and 300 hours looking to take a Seneca to get some IFR time would face difficulties to rent one in Canada.
In the States you could go with 300 hours and CPL MIFR you get to rent piper Meridian and fly PIC at FL250 - Amazing way to build quality PIC time (with some restictions - call them for info)
http://executiveflyers.com/piper-meridian/

[N1 Green]

trey kule,
Students should not look outside if their flying IFR. And if it’s VFR – just go with c 172M model to get the spins and other basics done.
In all of my last 10+ posts I was talking about the fact that young pilots must expose themselves to IFR flying using glass cockpit. In your example you are talking on how to educate basics. No need to mix. Let the guy get his CPL , fly the spins, fly the grass strips and low altitude navigation, but, at some point, we need to let the VFR go and start filing IFR flight plans. As a flight instructor, how many renters have you signed out for an IFR flight? (I am not even asking about a Multi IFR flight on an IMC day).
Personality is a large subject; I dealt with it a lot in the past. One thing I can say for SURE, the base of high quality CRM begins with the right person. Major errors like the KLM crash at Tenerife, like the American Flying into the mountain in south America, like the Turkish stalling on final at EHAM is a result of poor cockpit management, no CRM in affect.
It is not about SOP’s and when to say “80 knots cross check” , it is more about knowing how to properly operate your crew. Just like an aircraft, same with people, we have our own “operational envelope”, If I am flying c C560 into CYYZ as the PM (Pilot Monitoring) , and my First Officer doing some manual flying as PF (pilot flying), I notice that he is too fast on the decent.. the first thing we think is “tell him”. Not always, maybe I want to let him get close to the yellow bar on the ASI (if it’s safe to do so!), my job is to make sure I know his safety envelope and he knows mine. I know where my red line is,and once I am there - I will talk. Totally different in large operations with 3000 pilots. In this case, the human envelope is well defined by the company and should remain strict.

I can’t mention the Airline name (not in Canada); part of the first officer training/type rating is dealing with CRM issues. Not only in the Sim. But cases where he would be told to be at the Level-D sim at 8 in the morning and the instructor only shows up around 11 (in purpose). Or where the company calls the hotel the night before to ask to change his room around 11 in the evening. All kind. You learn to see if this person is the right one for the job.

Can he think clearly and not emotionally when he is flying the 767 with loss of hydraulic and his 2 kids are on the jump seat?

[N1 Green]

briefing and debriefing.

Some of you guys talked about the fact that it’s easier to generate high quality training on a military platform.
I agree with it. But still, the civilian platform (and I am not talking only about Canada – all over the world)
can do much better with the existing resources.

Few items that I would “copy paste” from the military platform into the civilian platform without increasing the cost of flight training significantly.


1. Main goal:
when the Instructor meet with his student before the flight, they talk about the flight and what is expected.
In the initial stage of training it’s great. BUT, later on, let’s say during your commercial training or during the advance
stages of the PPL, I believe that every flight should be presented to the student as a “mission”.
SIR YES SIR.. well.. not that mission, but same concept.


Example1:
You talk to your student before the flight and agree to go out to the practice area for the following items: Slow Flight, Steep Turns, Diversion
During taxi the student would wait for the “emmm I would like you.. too ..emm show me a short field take off” – sure, np. We line up,
get the short t/o done and out to the practice area. We get to the practice area, get the steep/slow done.. give me the map for a second… take me to Orangeville (diversion) .. give me some ETA.. ok lets go back.
We all know the drill, we’ve been there..

If I need to analyze this flight for a second, only 50% of this training flight put my student under some work load.
The other 50% is climb out, fly to the practice area, come back.. maybe some radio work, maybe some dead reckoning ..
easy for advanced PPL or for sure – CPL student.



Example 2: (The Military Mission concept):
First, what KIND of a flight is it? Are we going to Learn? Or Practice? let’s assume Practice, let’s assume it’s a CPL student or advance PPL student.
During the brief for a practice flight, the Instructor should present the student with the mission: (we are still in the classroom)

“I would like you to start the engine at 15:15” , “right after start-up, I would like you to remind me the number 14322” “We are going to do a short field take off, do not take off before 15:20” “During the climb out, I would like to climb out at 300 feet per minute if traffic permit and report every 500 feet during the climb, please keep a good look outside as I will ask you to identify towns along the route. Once reaching the altitude and constant speed, I would like you to inform me 3 minutes to the practice area entry. Once we enter the practice area, we should not exceed 20 minutes inside. We must be on the boundary facing out by 20 minutes. During the steep turn, I would like you to maintain speed – ask me for the speed right after you get your lookout done.
I would like you to always maintain 2200 RPM. If you wish to change your RPM setting, you need to ask me at least 1 minute before. I might remove this restriction during the flight. ( All this kind of info is being given at the briefing room before you walk outside.)

I am exaggerating with this example. But the point is simple – workload the pilot. Don’t over kill him,
a CPL student should be able to do this simple multi task. It also increases the self discipline of the student and creates a more professional atmosphere in the cockpit.
This is part of basic skill development on how to think a head of the aircraft.
This method is being used to train fighter jet pilots in their very beginning stage – load their mission with info and tasks. If they can manage to fly it with 150% workload , they will fly it perfectly when you lower the load to 80%. Very important thing: do not damage the learning curve by over loading the pilot.
That’s why I asked – is it a training flight or learning? Because this method is good for TRAINING not learining.
Most important: now that we have goals, we can debrief and see if you manage to achieve our goals.



2. Debriefing.

One of the most important things in flying!
I find the post flight brief to be extremely important. And I will explain why in a second.
The fact is that in most flight schools, the post flight brief doesn’t exist.
Some instructors would talk to you right after engine shut down and some will just walk with you back to dispatch to get the tow bar and give you some points about your flight, few of them would really walk with you back to the classroom and talk.

The main issue that cause poor debrief is the FTU schedule.
Most flight schools work on a 2 hr block. Assume you talk for 20 minutes, paperwork/get to the plane, sometimes a walk around if not done before by the students and you only manage to yell “Clear” about 35-45 minutes after you meet your instructor.
10 min to the practice area, 1.1 air time and by the time your back your out of time.

I know that instructors debrief pilots in their initial stages (first 15 hours say) and when the student is getting more hours (+30), We barely see any debriefs
The idea is simple; first, which goals we achieved and which one we missed.
WHAT was wrong? Why it was wrong?

What part was good? WHY is it good? , usually we ask and talk about the bad things, but the idea is also to ask what helped us to achieve our goal.

I know, it is just another flight and your student is doing very good steep turns – no issue, no need to talk about it – next. NO! do talk about it, for few second..
because on the next flight this might be his issue. Ask the student to explain why does he think the steep turn worked out for him.

Today you practice about remembering to note a number after a 172 startup ,to call 3 minutes to the practice area and to remember what kind of landing is expected on the way back. Tomorrow you convert those tasks to stop on a SID restriction or mark yourself a notam along route.
It is workload training – that’s all it is.

I wanted to give more examples from the military platform that can contribute to the civilian training platform, but this post is just toooo long.. Sorry about it 
Ill try to keep it short next time!

would love to hear comments from you, thanks

[trey kule]

First of all, in my example, the pilots had never flown any planes throughout their entire training that did not have a glass panel. Not sure why you decided to make a distinction between IFR and VFR.
Secondly, I am not sure how you fly IFR without ever looking outside he plane. I m curious how you land a small plane without ever looking out..Or climb out when the weather at the departure airport is VFR...sometimes I really wonder exactly how much experience posters have.

Students should not look outside if their flying IFR

????????your quote..
Your offhand suggestions missed the point entirely.
I am not an instructor. But I do have to deal with some of the nonsensical ideas that new CPLs get into their heads.
Before anyone is sent on a " mission" , besides a flight suit, shades, and a honking big watch, they need to have the skills in place to successfully complete the mission. My experience is that many of the instructors don't seem to be able to differentiate between teaching, letting the student practice, and testing....no sense in assigning someone a " mission" to fly cross country if they can't handle 5 kt crosswind.
BTW. I am a big fan of CRM. But all the CRM in the world is not going to help if the pilots don't know how to fly....and that too, is something I have the sense is forgotten by many who are supposed to be teaching flying, not assigning missions or making up test scenarios to replace training.
You are a pilot though, right?.
For anyone who would like to learn more about human factors than they can learn here, I suggest taking a few moments and going to. http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/s ... re-333.htm T hree very good brochures on human factors available.

[photofly]

I understand what N1G is saying. I think there's merit to it. A lot of merit, actually.

I suspect it could apply to instructors at the same time: What are my goals for this lesson? What do I want the student to learn? How are we going to use the time to achieve that? And after the flight, how well did I do?

[N1 Green]

First of all, in my example, the pilots had never flown any planes throughout their entire training that did not have a glass panel. Not sure why you decided to make a distinction between IFR and VFR.
Secondly, I am not sure how you fly IFR without ever looking outside he plane. I m curious how you land a small plane without ever looking out..Or climb out when the weather at the departure airport is VFR...sometimes I really wonder exactly how much experience posters have.

Students should not look outside if their flying IFR

????????your quote..
Your offhand suggestions missed the point entirely.
I am not an instructor. But I do have to deal with some of the nonsensical ideas that new CPLs get into their heads.
Before anyone is sent on a " mission" , besides a flight suit, shades, and a honking big watch, they need to have the skills in place to successfully complete the mission. My experience is that many of the instructors don't seem to be able to differentiate between teaching, letting the student practice, and testing....no sense in assigning someone a " mission" to fly cross country if they can't handle 5 kt crosswind.
BTW. I am a big fan of CRM. But all the CRM in the world is not going to help if the pilots don't know how to fly....and that too, is something I have the sense is forgotten by many who are supposed to be teaching flying, not assigning missions or making up test scenarios to replace training.
You are a pilot though, right?.
For anyone who would like to learn more about human factors than they can learn here, I suggest taking a few moments and going to. http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/s ... re-333.htm T hree very good brochures on human factors available.

It is always easy to take someone else response and downgrade it, try to upgrade it. Instead of making a joke about the mission idea, try to hold yourself and post an adult comment.
Cheap comments are not helping anyone. Not sure why your making a joke out of the last post.

Read my posts from before about getting some basics done with non glass aircrafts, about flight schools that do not signout students for IFR flights, about the big difference between learning and training, about how a 25 years old pulls 5Gs on an F18 with 600 hours of flight.


Then put a proper response that relevant to the subject.



Most of my writing is focusing on advanced items, assuming basics achieved.   
And you are telling me that CRM would not help if the guy don't know how to fly, wow, really??  Thank you Sir for adding this important comment.


By the way, It takes 2 years to step from the second officer jump seat to the first officer seat (KLM pilot cadet)

[DonutHole]

I don't see the value of learning to fly glass from the get go, especially ifr

In Canada a fresh cpl flying ifr isn't going to be flying a shiny new rj they're going to fly a clapped out ho or a 30 year old king air... They don't even have glass! I peeked in the cockpit of a dash 8 last year, all steam.

[trey kule]

You are probably right about my making light of it. Just a bit hard to take you seriously...why ?
You use a GPS to help you in the flare. Please share that with us. I , or one have no idea how you do that. A radar altimeter, yes, but a GPS.
And 25 year olds pulling five g's. maybe my memory is failing, but some poster like aux bat here I think will confirm it is closer to 9!

You want to be taken seriously? Share with us all how you use the GPS to assist in the flare...when you are fliying on instruments. VOR radials to assist in taxing to the gate. Are they on charts somewhere?
Please share.

I know you declined someone else who requested a bit about your experience level, but I have to admit, I am curious now also.

When I have read your explanations to the above, I give you my word I will treat your posts with the seriousness they deserve.