Scudrunners

[url=https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... nu1862.htm]https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... nu1862.htm[/url]

As my inaugural post here I thought I'd discuss the Multi Crew Pilot license ...  The future of aviation...  Just what pilots need; More training on managing a Multi Crew aircraft as a first officer and less stick and rudder time?  Now little Bobby or Suzie has a fast track to the right seat of a Dash 8.   

Now perhaps I'm just old and cynical but I didn't touch the right seat of anything larger than a 1900 until I had several thousand hours in the left seat of a bunch of stuff....  I could have found that right seat job sooner I suppose but I wanted that experience and I wouldn't trade that for anything... I always felt that Canadian pilots did so well overseas and for the most part in Canada because our system forces us to get lots of actual stick and rudder experience before we start flying around 50 + people. 

The MCPL seems to want to replace all that with simulators and specific training in Multi Crew environment and less stick and rudder skills. 

When I read the report on Air France 447 I saw it as the outcome of this practice...

Again...  Perhaps I'm just cynical but it's worthy of discussion.

Cheers

The FAA's view on the MCPL can be
summed up as:

"Get 1500 hrs in a real airplane"

The completely opposite direction of
the Euro-crap MCPL.

See the new FAA ATPL rules, effective
1 Aug 2014:

http://learntoflyhere.com/2015/03/04/ne ... ots-guide/

I certainly agree stick and rudder time is essential to be a good pilot, however as we know that hasn't been the mantra of airlines for years.  It's all about automation mgmt. 

We already have 250hr wonders filling right seats of Dash's, or 37s overseas.  And it is no surprise when these planes crash ala Colgan, Air France, Asiana, Transasia, etc.  All because those pilots forgot/have weak fundamentals of basic flying and the skill set to hand fly an aircraft.  All because they've become programing experts rather than pilots. It's not their fault, it's airline policy to have auto on as soon and late as possible.  And it's that policy that has to change.

I wouldn't trade my flying up north or flying autopilotless airplanes for anything, as it made me a better pilot than any fast track airline program could do.  I just hope/wish that new pilots would see the benefit of building real experience rather than becoming a pilotless drone in the right seat of some airline off the bat.

I am sure most of you have seen this video but for those who have not.

Children of Magenta

[html][/html]

Ahh... the question is very difficult to answer.

Having been exposed to both methods of crewing automated aircraft I go back to what the Airbus factory instructors first told me about fly by wire computer generated aircraft.

Quote ::

We want you to learn to fly this machine with zero knowledge of it and zero manuals, just sit in the thing and learn to fly it by yourself.....if you have a question we will answer it. Our problem is designing a machine that anyone can safely fly, at this point in time we have a lot of designing to do.

It was a very interesting experience learning to fly a computer....interesting for a short period of time that is.

To sum my experience up I would rather drill my own teeth without pain killer than spend my career watching a video game.

Is it safer than the way Canada does it?

I honestly do not know, because when you look at the millions of hours flown in these magic boxes and then look at how few actually crash one has to concede automation is quite impressive.....until something really goes sideways.....then I want a pilot who actually understands how to fly by hand sitting up there.

Are they still teaching basic airplane handling these days?