How do we persuade today's high flyers to be tomorrow's pilots

Despite the global economy experiencing arguably its greatest challenges ever, the demand for pilots – as well as engineers and air traffic controllers – is greater than ever. According to Boeing, the industry will have to train 466,500 new pilots and nearly 600,000 new technicians between now and 2029. However, there are strong indications that interest in what were traditionally viewed as challenging and rewarding careers in our industry is diminishing.

Many young people, who might have considered the technology-led challenges presented by a career in aviation, are instead choosing to pursue other goals – ones that offer better pay, less personal responsibility and a less fractured personal lifestyle. 

It could also be argued that many young people are either unaware of what is offered by a career in aviation or have a negative view of it.

The shortage of pilots leaving the various military forces is often quoted as a main factor contributing to a shortfall of the numbers required, and that situation is only going to get worse as the armed forces in many parts of the world are reduced for budgetary as well as political reasons.

Regrettably, going hand-in-hand with the projected shortfall of suitable candidates are many reports that indicate a reduction of academic standards, particularly in the western public school systems. It seems ironic that, in a world now becoming dominated by technology, the number of students demonstrating proficiency in, and interest of, science and mathematics, is reducing to a level that concerns many in business, industry and research.

In the United States an initiative known as STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), was the result of the report Prepare and Inspire, which reviewed the state of the K-12 educational system and how it compared with other industrialised nations. This initiative seeks to address the parlous state of competency in the above subjects, though it may well founder due to budgetary limitations and political interference. Other industrialised nations suffer from the same shortcomings.

Bearing in mind the pilot qualities listed previously and the undoubted technological challenges facing the pilots of tomorrow, where will suitable candidates come from? If the combination of a ‘teach to test’ mentality in schools, followed by a ‘train to test’ mentality in the industry is aggravated by candidates’ poor understanding of the meaning of intellectual curiosity, personal responsibility, critical thinking and ethical behaviour, how can we expect the industry to maintain its enviable record of safety and reliability? Will the accident rate, which stubbornly refuses to reduce further towards a theoretical zero, instead start to increase? 

Although there are many initiatives in place to encourage an interest in aviation in young people, these are generally fragmented.

There is little doubt that it is essential for interest to be generated at a young age and one way to accomplish that would be to provide ‘aviation studies’ courses in the schools, preferably at high school level.

With a move to end the study of worthless subjects in schools and universities, which lead to unrealistic expectations by the students concerned, it should surely be possible to replace those with courses designed to provide valuable grounding in subjects that will lead to fruitful and rewarding careers.

Bearing in mind the contribution to GDP by aviation in many countries, it should surely be possible to convince educational authorities that courses in aviation studies would help direct young people into careers that provide major benefit to the entire community. It is an indisputable fact that aviation is a major contributor to economies, mobility, wealth generation and employment.

At a time when nations are struggling to re-energise their economies and position themselves for the inevitable turnaround in business, it should surely make sense to ensure that there is a steady supply of young people available to enter careers in aviation.

High school courses in aviation studies could be designed to appeal to anyone wishing to pursue a career as a pilot, engineer/mechanic or air traffic controller. A two-year course could be divided up into a first year that covers the generalities, such as aircraft systems, mechanics, aviation mathematics and science, meteorology, aviation law, history and structure of the aviation industry and ethics, while the second year could focus on the specifics of the career path that the young person wishes to pursue. Properly structured, these courses could lead to completion of the basic regulatory examinations leading to issue of the appropriate licences.

There are, arguably, two things that have led to aviation becoming the safest and most efficient method of transportation in the world and they seem oddly at variance with each other.

On the one hand we have seen the imagination and inventiveness of aircraft designers supported by the professionalism and courage of test pilots, while on the other the conservatism of an industry that is often resistant to change: the risk takers and risk-averse working symbiotically together.

One thing more than any other has driven the development and innovation of the industry and that is technology.

Sadly, many lives have been lost over the years, some through material and equipment failure but far too many through human failings. Clearly, technology can only do so much. It seems incredible that, despite huge sums being invested in technology that is supposed to improve safety and efficiency, we continue to lose aircraft and people.

What is particularly surprising – and disappointing – is that the majority of these accidents are totally avoidable and involve serviceable aircraft, right up to the moment of impact. Obviously, what we are doing is working to a certain extent, but falling short of the theoretically possible zero accident rate.

In an industry that relies so heavily on technological innovation one would expect that technical training would have increased in step with that innovation. As failures of automation can often provide significant challenges as far as handling of the aircraft is concerned, one would have expected the industry to place great emphasis on maintaining those skills. Regrettably, neither of those is the case. Instead, there is overwhelming evidence that an over-reliance on technology combined with a reduction of basic pilot handling skills has led to aircraft accidents that should have been perfectly avoidable.

Loss of control in flight (LOC-I), currently the leading causal factor in accidents, is often touted as a new phenomenon that requires new training and new skills. Not so.

The same skills that were required in a pre-automation age are just as relevant now. Suitably updated to suit the size, performance and aerodynamic characteristics of today’s aircraft, they should have the same priority as managing automation now has. Remarkably, a recent survey of one of the industry’s most successful airlines showed that not one of the pilots surveyed had ever received any training in handling that airline’s aircraft in the cruise, or demonstration of its handling characteristics.

Bearing in mind that the majority of pilots spend long hours in that environment, it seems astonishing that this is the case. This is by no means an exception and although this has, belatedly, been addressed by some airlines, it is not receiving the attention that it should.

Over the last two to three decades we have seen what can only be described as a ‘dumbing down of the airline pilot’. The intellectual and physical skills once required of the pilot have largely been replaced by an emphasis on ‘soft skills’ and automation management. The pilot who once cynically challenged sources of information now readily accepts information from a variety of sources, many computer-generated, without question. This ‘training mismatch’ has undoubtedly been a factor in recent accidents where pilots have failed to demonstrate the basic skills that could reasonably have been expected of them.

A recent editorial comment in a major aviation publication laid the blame on regulators for the current problems. However, this is an inaccurate and unfair comment. Many CEOs, directors of operations and flying training managers have been seduced by the idea that modern aircraft are so reliable that traditional skills and knowledge can be reduced to the absolute minimum and replaced by mere management of the automatic systems. Consequently, pilots often receive the absolute minimum amount of training, which is borne out by some recent accidents.

Regrettably, while the names and reputations of the pilots involved in aircraft accidents will always be associated with their failings, the people who bear much of the responsibility for their lack of skills, the CEOs, directors of operations and flying training managers, will enjoy comfortable anonymity.

If the industry moved to address this problem it would surely pay dividends. When a captain who has a record of failing check rides continues to be rostered in the left seat, then who is to blame when he/she has an accident and people are killed? Surely it must be the management that either turned a blind eye and accepted the risk rather than address the problem, or were too incompetent to recognise that a risk existed.

It is a rare pilot who would voluntarily give up a career that he/she loves but it is not difficult to terminate someone’s training if he/she clearly does not have what it takes to perform satisfactorily on the line, especially under pressure.

A study of recent accidents reveals that in more than a few cases the captain – and in some cases the F/O – was known to be a weak performer. As has been pointed out before, management that wilfully pares training to the absolute minimum, adopting a one-size-fits-all approach to its trainees, is as guilty of compromising the safety chain as one that knowingly puts a weak captain in charge of public transport flights. 

One of the problems with some young pilots today is that they “don’t know what they don't know”.

We have reduced training to a minimum, relying on aircraft that ‘can never go wrong’. Unfortunately, they sometimes do and the pilots may be at a loss as to how to handle the situation.

With reduced time to command – a possibility as the industry expands rapidly – there is absolutely no way that the experience gap can be filled other than by increased, rather than decreased, training, combined with appropriate mentoring. The latter, however, needs almost as much care and attention as a refined training programme and requires overbearing captains being either ‘reprogrammed’ to change their ways or terminated as captains. While this is possible – and even likely – with the more enlightened operators, it is not going to happen so easily with others.

As the aviation industry moves forward into an era that is intensely technology driven it needs to reassess the way it recruits and trains pilots. The current system, based on decades-old concepts, has adapted to change by use of  ‘band aid’ solutions, where add-ons, such as CRM, SMS and others, have come to define the face of modern aviation.

Complex situations require complex solutions and a systemic, rather than reductionist approach. If we are to avoid an increase in the accident rate, we need to ensure that our pilots are as well trained as possible.

Novel approaches to continuing education, forums for exchanges of ideas and information can all help to ensure that the pilot remains fully informed of new developments in the industry as well as improving his/her technical knowledge.

Better use of training time in the simulator, as well as the aircraft, will help develop confidence as well as handling skills. Better management will ensure that weaknesses are identified earlier and those that do not respond satisfactorily to remedial training are terminated.

Someone once described manliness as ‘confidence in the face of risk’. I would suggest we could apply the same description to piloting. It is our responsibility to ensure that our pilots have that confidence.

• Robert Scott FRAeS has extensive experience of training in the military, airlines, corporate and general aviation environments. He is director, business development, for Scott Consulting Services and writes regularly on aviation matters, particularly those pertaining to recruiting and training. He can be reached at robert@scottconsulting.co