The USA is doing some soul-searching about whether its present systems for training and licensing professional transport pilots are good enough.
The US Federal Aviation Administration's pilot training and licensing requirements have worked well for a long time, so why is this question being posed? The impetus for action was provided by findings from the investigation into the Colgan Air accident at Buffalo, in which the crew caused the crash by reacting to a stall warning in the wrong way. But it is also no coincidence that this review is taking place while the office of FAA administrator, for the first time in years, is occupied by an experienced former airline pilot, Randy Babbitt. Before the Colgan accident he was voicing concerns about commercial piloting standards.
The FAA's proposals are couched as questions designed to elicit responses from the aviation community. Some questions are familiar: should pilots have more flying hours before being allowed to be a co-pilot in a commercial aircraft? How many more? Should it be a requirement that they have been exposed to certain listed experiences, such as icing conditions, before going on the line? Can additional academic learning about aviation replace some of the flying hours?
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the US training and licensing system, if all its components work as they should. Given a student pilot with appropriate aptitudes, good quality training in the specified knowledge and skills, and systems for testing skills reliable enough to reveal shortcomings, the licensed pilot that emerges should have the makings of an airline co-pilot.
A lot depends on the carrier. If it takes no account of the new-hire's personal training records, or takes a low-hour pilot with single-crew time flying Cessna Caravans without providing multi-crew co-operation instruction, that is a risk. If it conducts recurrent training pitched simply at meeting regulatory requirements, and does not assess personal training needs, the risk increases.
Babbitt is right to think hours are not the answer. Other FAA ideas include demanding endorsements on a pilot's licence confirming training for - or experience of - flight in icing conditions or high-altitude flight. That should be the airline's responsibility. If the carrier knows it is taking on a low-hour pilot with no experience of high-performance aircraft, it should provide the training that will fill any skill and knowledge gaps. The possession of a licence never was, by itself, proof of competence, and nothing has changed.
Source: Flight International
