For many airline pilots, the training and education process to become qualified to operate an aircraft can be a grueling one. As a result of self-sponsored candidate preferences, certain Aircraft Training Organization (ATO) offer an accelerated type rating. Accelerated flight training helps pilots get their type rating more rapidly. There are many flight schools in the United States and around the world that offer this kind of training.
A pilot enrolled in an accelerated flight-training program will be going through rigorous training day in and day out. There will be training for a few hours each and every day. During this training, the pilots will complete different types of training similar to traditional flight schools such as in-class education, ground flight simulators and exams. There are also in-flight air lessons with the qualified pilot instructors. The instructors will see if the pilot students are ready for the next step.
In essence, it is a regular flight school compressed in a shorter period of time. Furthermore, there is more one on one time where the pilot gets private lessons from experienced pilot instructors. An accelerated training program for type rating qualification meets all the requirements from the official airline organizations and airline government organizations that determine the pilot training and education requirements. Alternative programs such as the Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) in the United States and the Alternative Training and Qualification Program (ATQP) in Europe allow pilots new, more personalized means of completing strict training requirements, supposedly accelerating the training process.
Simulator training time is also becoming more compressed in order to save time and money. Pilots can only log certain types of simulator time.
A sub-category of MCPL?^l
- Emergency/abnormal scenarios are being combined together, even though the events are extremely unlikely to occur together based on the operational record
- Recent accident scenarios are emphasized and “Routine” flight operations are being under-emphasized
- More training is being added without analyzing the current curriculum to remove unnecessary or redundant segments
- Shortened type rating may not provide opportunities to detect weaknesses in basic pilot skills among the candidates.
Corroborating sources and comments
http://www.cae.com/uploadedFiles/Content/BusinessUnit/Civil_Aviation/CAE-Airline-Pilot-Demand-Outlook-Spread.pdf One of the reasons pilot training needs to undergo a major overhaul is the reality that more efficient and effective use of training devices and training time is needed. We can train smarter if the investment in revamping the way we do things is undertaken by training providers.
Comment from experienced training pilot with respect to hazards listed:
This is a reality for some. It is old school and rarely contributes to positive learning or changes in behavior. To overload a pilot is to gain nothing in return. Very few pilots can take on those levels of combined failures. The QANTAS A380 engine incident last year involved 4 pilots. All Captains with lots of experience who collectively managed the very difficult and demanding task of getting the aircraft safely on the ground. There were no guarantees. It would be highly unlikely that a crew during a training event would have that benefit. Multiple failures usually foster a lack of confidence and a feeling of inadequacy. Those using this approach to training are not only wasting valuable training time but generating negative learning and a loss of confidence for their crews. An opportunity missed.
The good news is that the number of those using this approach is decreasing.
The reality of industry paranoia dictates what should and shouldn’t be done in pilot training. When an accident occurs, the investigators supply industry with a number of recommendations that eventually find their way into recommended training. The Dash 8 accident in Buffalo has set off a fire storm in stall recognition and recovery. The effort made in this area has been monumental. While it was obviously needed it was probably needed because of over zealousness on the part of PTS misinterpretation for decades on what the minimum loss of altitude actually meant. Of late, LOC-I has taken the spotlight and industry is now bending over backward to address the issue. What has not changed in our industry is the fact that pilots, other than military, do not receive or require training outside the normal flight envelope. While statistics in a particular event have risen, the event (LOC) rightfully receives industry focus and now the need for remedy moves to the forefront. This will lead to additional training costs and again, how keen will the airlines be when their assets are exposed to such risky events. I believe most pilots don’t undertake the training on their own for that reason alone.
Beyond the normal pilot training curriculum with the number of accident investigations resulting in recommendations that require additional training we’re finding training time at a premium. Each training session is four hours duration. A typical type-rating course is 32 hours. Broken down into 8 four-hour sessions. With the additional recommendations for training events within these four-hour blocks will have to be glossed over or omitted. When conducting “approved” training this can be problematic in that the student doesn’t cover the “approved” syllabus. Does that student benefit from full and complete training as a result? Where does the new training requirement fit in? Looking at decreased manual piloting skills as an example. It can be argued that the simulator is a simulator and not the real aircraft. Control loading in a simulator may contribute to improved manual flying skills but it is unlikely in the real airliners that passenger comfort will be allowed to suffer just to accommodate this deficiency. It poses a problem that will still have to be addressed. How?
Pilot type training is driven by the PTS requirements for the issuance of a type rating. The PTS does not take into account the wide variations in aircraft types. Type rating training is geared to meeting the PTS requirements and the successful completion of the type checkride. There is little or no space in the current type rating training curriculum for the additional recommendations of the NTSB and FAA following the recent rash of aircraft accidents, especially LOC. This type of training recommended by these agencies is additional cost and would require specialty training.
With regard to Upset/LOC, presently most TRTOs do not provide this kind of specialty training and it would require several things on the part of the TRTO. Instructors would have to be taught Upset Recovery, certified as Upset Recovery Instructors and a specialty course designed for these newly qualified instructors to instruct. In the case of one manufacturer it is unlikely that this TRTO will take this on. This is a licensing issue and something that should be addressed during the initial phase of pilot training before they show up at our organization for type training. This may be the case with other major manufacturers as well.
This kind of specialty training should be left to the individual airlines to provide their crews.