lomapaseo;
I just can't seem to develop a link in my head between pilot poor pay and safety performance.
I guess if Michael Moore says so there must be something rotten.
But aren't all pilots motivated to save themselves as well as their passenger's or is there a suicidal urge somewhere to end it all?
Based on what I have read I thought that safety was supposed to be tied to the money grubbing big businesses sending out our airplane tied together with speed tape. But if Michel is on to something could we as passengers just add in a few bucks per ticket each and guarantee that our crew is well fed and happy enough to fly the damn plane.
Perhaps there should be a tip jar at the exit doors to ensure our money is well spent and that we survived long enough to reward the crew.
Under most circumstances, there is no direct link between a poorly-paid pilot and the safety of his or her flight. Clearly this principle does not obtain in the Colgan case, which I think is a serious indicator of this very problem but which will not be seen as such by any airline in the US or Canada. Of this, more in a moment.
The link is not resident within the individual pilot but within the much broader processes of who is coming into aviation and the nature of the pilot selection process.
This won't be taken well by anyone so I'll just say it bluntly: Those who have the native intelligence and personal discipline as well as the talents and strong motivations to make a good pilot are not coming into the profession anymore, simply because it is an atrociously-treated and horribly-paid profession with no security, no pension and no real respect or status within the business community and these candidates know this very well.
Instead, those with the necessary qualities and abilities are going into other, far more rewarding careers while those with stars in their eyes but perhaps without the same level of capabilities choose to go into flying. Please understand that I do not mean this unkindly - it needs to be stated that some are suited to aviation, most are not, and the qualities it takes to do airline flying safely and well are not that common. It is not a career one just "decides on day" to do. I won't elaborate further. It needs to be lived to understand this.
Although it is far reduced from a decade ago there is still a pilot pool to hire from but, and this is important to comprehend, standards have had to be lowered significantly to fill the seats.
Combine this with an absent regulator under SMS and the airlines will cut corners where they will, including in training. Productivity demands are very high and the issues of fatigue risk management have been dismissed by both the airlines and the regulator in Canada. (At least the FAA is saying something about this major concern).
One very big sign of this is the MCPL licence which puts what I consider a "non-pilot" into the right seat of medium and large size aircraft. An MCPL can't rent a Cessna 172 but can sit in an airliner as one of two pilots.
This initiative has been discussed at length and those interested can do a search of the threads on PPRuNe for further. I absolutely don't intend to insult anyone in this category but this is aviation and "being nice to people" sometimes creates unwarranted dangers and can even kill people so take this the way it is intended - as "advice" from experience and not an arrogance which is inappropriate in the cockpit.
As a (now retired) captain of 35 years and 20,000hrs or so who has flown all heavy transports except the B747, B777 and A300/310 series and spent a career in flight safey work, I do not want a 250hr simulator wonder helping me make decisions on the ramp about MEL items, fuel and the dozens of passengers items that come up during the cockpit check, or over the Atlantic or Pacific on weather diversions, TCAS responses, ETOPS diversions or alternate changes while enroute. I want an experienced First Officer and Augment Pilot up front while I'm back on my break who are disciplined, knowledgable, can use the radar intelligently and otherwise won't do something stupid outside of the SOPs.
The Colgan accident took a highly-motivated, marginally trained, poorly-paid First Officer who had no idea of the kind of airline she was working for and no concept of the overriding risks inherent in the working conditions and job on the Q400 she was doing. This was through and through an organizational accident and it's going to happen again because the standards have been lowered to fill the two seats up front. She was likely just super-glad to be flying for living and making it work just to get by. That said, she flew after commuting across the country, with a cold and with the knowledge that her training was indeed marginal. THAT is the reality of airline flying today and while there are many, many highly-experienced, highly-capable veterans flying for airlines today, that is slowly changing.
THAT is the connection between poor pilot pay and flight safety. No MBA is capable of seeing it because first of all they dont' believe it and second of all, they know nothing about aviation and flight safety work.
A lot more could be said, but it's all been said before, perhaps more politely but it's time to ditch that approach and convey some of the realities of airline flying today to those just getting their first job but especially to some SLF's (
not you lomapaseo, who's contributions I always enjoy) who continue to offer their views but still will complain about air fares.