Alot of plane crashes?

[Lost in Saigon]

Many airlines around the world have had "Cadet" programs for many years.

What is the major difference between a "Cadet" program and a "Multi Crew Licence"?

[trey kule]

I am not sure that many of the cadet programs were as successful as they origianlly were hoped to be. I am familiar with one airline's experience, and they subsequently, after a few years of on line experience with the graduates of their program scaled it back and then quietly cancelled it.
The other thing about the cadet programs (speaking in general terms as I am not familiar with that many of them) is that they still taught the basic flying skills. The transition to twin engine and turbines was more intense and introduced earlier but the emphasis was still on producing a competent, traditionally skilled pilot.

As I understand the MCPL, and I stand to be corrected, because I am just learning about this, is that the emphasis will not be on traditional flying skills. From a very personal perspective this is a trend that has been slowly happening in the last few years anyway...students are being taught from the very start PDM, CRM , UFT, in the ab initio stages of flying which I find sometimes produces a pilot who reacts to everything with procedures and checklists instead of flying the plane.

If aircraft can substitute automation for flying skills, and the Captain has the ability to back up the plane in the case of a failure, there simply may be no need to have a FO who can even fly...

Consider the experience level of some of the FO's now going from flight school to the cockpits of relatively complex aircraft...

The world is changing. Technology has made aircraft a world apart from the ones flown a few generations ago, and maybe it is time to recognize that pilots, as we know them now, will simply not be needed in the future.

[Airtids]

Northern Alberta somewhere. Could never find a report or CADORS for it.

Now THAT piqued my interest...

Found this: http://www.tc.gc.ca/Aviation/applicatio ... Position=6

[Prairie Chicken]

Times are changing, and may ultimately mean pilots, as we know them are going the way of blacksmiths or red river wagon builders.

I suspect you're right Kule. I just didn't expect to see it coming so soon & I can't say it leaves me with a warm & fuzzy feeling.

I've long felt we of the older-but-not-yet-old generation may have lived thru the best of times. You know ... wild trees, clean air, good flying. We missed the warbirds, but have flown some pretty neat stuff all the same.

[flyinthebug]

Airtids... That is a broken link, internal error.
Do you have another link?
Cheers

[CD]

You cannot link directly to a particular CADORS report due to the way the search is conducted within the database. If Airtids provides the CADORS number, you can pull up the report from the search page:

CADORS Main Menu

[flyinthebug]

Thx CD. Maybe someone (Airtids) could provide the CADORs #?

[bumffs]

2008C3570

[iflyforpie]

That's what it links to. But the aircraft in question (C-FBTI) is (was) a Cessna 337.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Kootenay ... _id=NEXTID

[dashx]

http://toolkit.bootsnall.com/transporta ... story.html

The annals of commercial aviation — more or less an eighty year history — are full of accidents, a fact, however frustrating, inherent in the evolution of technology and safety. We should learn to be more comfortable with this. For in spite of such, the numbers remain firmly on your side, by a wide enough margin that none of us should be dissuaded from taking to the skies.

"There but by the grace of God go I." Trusting my skills as a mechanic and trusting your skill as the pilot.

[Airtids]

2008C3570

Yes, that's the one. Interesting read, but I'm just "a loudmouth who couldn't get along with anybody and got run outta town", so what would I know, right BA?

That's what it links to. But the aircraft in question (C-FBTI) is (was) a Cessna 337.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Kootenay ... _id=NEXTID

It is/was a 337F. I'd be very interested to know what's become of it, and what the cause for the gear not extending was determined to be.

As to the rest of the thread, I tend to agree with Trey and PC that sheer stick and rudder skills complemented by experienced gained by having 'been there, done that', are being eroded by technology coupled with very specific training.

[JL]

This was a topic on another forum and a thought expressed there was that we should go to version 2.0 of automation where the pilot flies and the FMC monitors the pilot...not the other way around. This would have two benefits. Pilots would keep the hands and feet skills sharp and the second would be removing pilots from the monitoring role. People perform poorly as system monitors.

[trey kule]

Truth be told JL, those pesky automated systems fly better than human pilots. Not sure how many believe that, but it is a fact. And , while 50% of pilots are below average, the systems are all 100% up to speed, Dont use drugs or alcohol, dont come to work tired or with problems from home, and dont show off.

Seriously though, they really do fly the aircraft alot better than most pilots, which leads to the question of whether getting "stick time" as a pilot rather than efficiency, pax comfort, etc, should be the priority of a company. Certainly many companies dont think so and actively ban pilots from touching the controls on certain types of approaches etc.

[chu me]

Now I may be way off the mark here, but, I believe that the Cadet programs airlines were running, involved taking someone off the street and putting them through a rigorous flight training program to get them all the necessary qualifications to fly a big jet right seat( I.E. Cpl, multi-ifr, and some flight experience). Not having read all the links posted here on this subject, it sounds to me that this licence would do away with that training and only involve minimal training (i.e. very little actual flight training and none of the appropriate licences ) in order to get to that right seat.
It seems to me that at least under the Cadet program the co-joe had some experience to either back-up or question the Captains decisions and judgement,... this is what CRM is all about. If you take away that experience( in effect removing a second pilot from the flight deck ) all you have left is a "gear up, flaps up, and shutup" kind of cockpit. This was determined to be the main reason for the largest air disaster the world has known... the collision of two 747's in Tenerife in 77,... 568 dead, all because the Captain wouldn't listen to his Co-pilot. What Captain is going to listen to someone who has very little actual flight experience.
If this multi-crew licence is true, we will be taking a giant step backwards.

Ther I'm done boys......have at'er

P.S. Sorry for the long run on sentences

[It's the Pitts]

I've heard of these Cadet programs. If these Airlines want to spend money on these programs, that's up to them. Why not tap into the Canadian Pilot pool? In one year of flying here you can almost see every flying condition possible. It's funny, when you are doing your flight training, they pump you full of ideas that you are going to see the cockpit of a 737 or A380 or whatever they're saying. Then you work your ass off for company X on the ramp for peanuts. When you finally get into a plane, they send you to CZZZ just south of the middle of nowhere, with little to no weather reports to do an NDB approach and then pick up a full load. I think that we as Canadian pilots are some of the best in the world. Do you really think that any Company in the world could every automate that?

Pitts

[Shiny Side Up]

Truth be told JL, those pesky automated systems fly better than human pilots. Not sure how many believe that, but it is a fact. And , while 50% of pilots are below average, the systems are all 100% up to speed, Dont use drugs or alcohol, dont come to work tired or with problems from home, and dont show off.

Seriously though, they really do fly the aircraft alot better than most pilots, which leads to the question of whether getting "stick time" as a pilot rather than efficiency, pax comfort, etc, should be the priority of a company. Certainly many companies dont think so and actively ban pilots from touching the controls on certain types of approaches etc.

Someday the pilot will probably be there solely to take his best shot at it if the system fails. Lets face it, as technolgy progresses the days of actively piloted aircraft is numbered. In the eyes of an airline run like many corporations are, the pilot is simply extra weight on board they would like to replace if they could.

[trey kule]

The advance of sophisticated technology is mainly in the heavy equipment (things like GPS excepted), so I think it will be a slow, rather than a sudden shift. I am guessing, that even with the shrinking bush operations, operations in the north, along the coast, and in remote areas will still need the tradional pilots for awhile.
What we may see, is the flight colleges training for the airlines and the independent schools teaching the traditional way, which will ultimately lead to pigeon holing as a career path.

Pilots are not only extra weight...They are a big expense to a company, and over the life of a plane, far more expensive than what is even now available.

When cars started to replace the horse and carriage there was many that felt it would never happen....

The future of aviation might be interested. If I was to go into today, I would specialize in avionics.

[foxmoth]

it is anticipated that the client operator will then enter into some form of an employment agreement with the trainee to ensure the operator receives full value from their investment.

OK you bond-smashers, gogitem!!!!