Pilot experience/passenger choice

[Jabiman]

You all know that whenever you book a flight you are given numerous options, some important, others inane. Seat number, meals, baggage, entertainment options and many others are available but while they may make the trip more comfortable they will do nothing to enhance my safety.
Even if we travel on the more expensive classes, everything is provided but once again we are not given any option or knowledge about the crew.
Whenever I take a taxi, I can talk to the driver, ensure he knows the route, examine his licence; and if not satisfied then I can take another.
But in the airline game we have no such choice, even though sometimes I have paid more for a taxi journey than for a flight!
Throughout these forums there are numerous threads debating the importance of experienced pilots in an emergency and the airlines taking cost cutting into the cockpit. Taken to its logical conclusion, the airlines will try to crew the plane with pilots with the minimum legislated qualifications and paid as little as possible, all in the name of reducing costs.
But I think it is about time that pax had the opportunity to choose the experience of the flight crew and if necessary pay a little more for the opportunity to have something which may in effect save ones life.
As the airlines have their rosters done well in advance, what I propose is that they give a rough guide as to the experience of the pilots rostered for each flight. Something as simple as does the First Officer have over 1500 hours experience and does the Captain have less than 5000 hours or more than 10000 hours would be enough form us to make an informed decision. It will allow us to choose a flight with which we are comfortable and if necessary pay a little more for an experienced crew if we want.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

So when your experienced choice of crew gets stuck overnight because of snow or goes sick and they replace him at the last minute with Mr. New Guy what are you gonna do? Get off?

[SNS3Guppy]

Taken to its logical conclusion, the airlines will try to crew the plane with pilots with the minimum legislated qualifications and paid as little as possible, all in the name of reducing costs.

That's not at all a logical conclusion, nor an informed one.

Airlines don't seek out inexperienced pilots. Some airlines pay little, and that's all they can get. Inexperienced pilots seek out any job they can find. For what some airlines pay, all they can get are inexperienced pilots. That's a relative thing, however.

If you're in much of the world, an inexperienced pilot at the regional level would be one with a few hundred hours. For many years, save for recently, in the US an inexperienced pilot would be one with four thousand hours or less. To get hired for a long time at the lowest rungs, one needed twenty five hundred hours or better. In recent times, pilots were getting hired with three hundred hours. This is not the norm. Certainly not in the US.

Presently we're hiring pilots in the 15,000 hour range. Why? Because we can get them. Like any company, we would prefer to find the most experineced, qualified pilots we can. We're not a regional, but we're also not a legacy carrier, either.

Hours, of course, mean nothing. Experience means everything. More to the point, what the individual pilot takes from his or her experiences, mean everything. Do you know enough to be able to interpret the qualifications of a pilot, and his or her capability, from looking at their hours? If so, then you need to leave whatever job you presently have and seek work in the human resources department of the finest carrier you can; your skill is unique and rare.

Perhaps you'd like to give the pilots a simulator check to determine if they will pass the standards you set.

Would you know what to look for?

If you get to choose me individually for the flight, does that mean I get to review your background and qualifications to fly, and decide if I want you on my flight?

The airline has already evaluated each pilot. Each pilot must undergo regular recurrent training and evaluation. I'm undergoing such evaluation myself, at the moment. I am watched very closely by check airmen who monitor me for safety, good judgement, accuracy and skill in flying, emergency procedures, aircraft knowledge and understanding, policies and procedures, and standardization. The smallest mistakes, errors, omissions, or items that could be improved upon are noted, repeated as necessary, and training is given. If I can't fly, if there's doubt as to my safety or ability or judgement, I'm not allowed back on the line.

Are you more qualified than these check airmen and inspectors to make this determination? Are you more qualified and able to decide who is able, than those professionals with a full career of experience and judgement, who make these decisions and observations every day?

It somewhat negates all that professionalism, training, and experinece, to have passengers with no training or experience making the decisions.

"Ooh, I like him."

"No, I won't fly with him. His chin is crooked."

"That one looks devious. Let's wait for a younger pilot."

"Hang on, that one's too young. Let's wait for one that's older."

"That one's got to be a vegetarian. I don't trust vegetarians. He probably doesn't have enough judgement to make that flight. Let's wait for a meat eater."

"This one says our pilot was a fighter pilot. He's only got seven hundred hours, but he must be good. After all, he flew fast."

"That one was a crop duster. Let's not trust him."

"Here, this is the one. Nice tie."

Perhaps you'd best leave professional evaluation to the professionals, and stick to choosing a window seat.

[Hotel Tango]

You might be surprised to learn how many "experienced" pilots have met an untimely end. And then we go into the debate of assessing "experience". Long haul crews pile on the hours in the cruise but make very few rotations per month. Short haul crews by contrast make a significant higher number of rotations per month. That might arguably make them more experienced but they won't be flying your long haul sector. Then there's the part of the world they generally fly in to consider vis-a-vis weather and available ground aids etc etc. The list just goes on.

[lexxity]

So you want to be able to pick a flight based on the number of hours the guys at the pointy end have?

Hypothetical situation. You see flight 1.) crewed by a 1500hr F/O and a 5000hr Cpt or flight 2.) crewed by a 7000hr f/o and 10000hr Cpt. Which do you chose based on that information?

How does that information tell you that flight one have actually dealt with, handled and safely executed a real emergency whereas flight 2 have never had any such thing.

:ugh: :suspect:

Also when you get in a cab is the guy likely to say "yeah guv, I had a massive smash just last week." Is he hell as like.....

[Jabiman]

While I agree that it will not be a perfect method for determining how good a pilot he is, as a general rule in life the more someone does ANY job the better they become at it. So it will certainly only be a guide but of course I would choose the more experienced crew as on the balance of probability they would perform better in an emergency situation.

As another example, if you were having brain surgery, do you go with the surgeon who has been doing it for 20 years or the guy who has just graduated from med school?

[k3lvc]

Is this not more suitable for Jet Blast - are you seriously suggesting that on a commecial flight the airline is not concerned about the £m++++ or hardware and 100+ pax on board and that pre-screened crew qualifications are more important than time/comfort/price :rolleyes:

If it's that important then I'd suggest a charter with your own choice of pilot would be the best option.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

As another example, if you were having brain surgery, do you go with the surgeon who has been doing it for 20 years or the guy who has just graduated from med school?

Well I certainly wouldn't put off a life saving operation just because the Doc has only got a few months experience.

Good enough is good enough, if good enough wasn't good enough then it wouldn't be good enough and it would be not good enough and, therefore, not good enough. Jetblast ho!

[Jabiman]

Thanks for all your input though I would ask the moderators that this thread not be moved but could we please create a poll instead. Something along the lines of: 'Given the knowledge, would pilot experience be a factor in your decision on which flight to book?'

And for those who trust airlines to do the right think, have a look at this:
Report: Finncomm AT42 at Seinäjoki on Jan 1st 2007, 4 go-arounds due to inexperienced crew (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=406a9cd5&opt=0)

Report: Finncomm AT42 at Seinäjoki on Jan 1st 2007, 4 go-arounds due to inexperienced crew
A Finncomm Airlines ATR42-500, registration OH-ATB performing flight FC205 from Helsinki to Seinäjoki, aborted landing at Seinäjoki after an EGPWS terrain alert. After the go-around another attempt was performed resulting again in an EGPWS terrain alert and a go-around. During the go-around, while turning onto final approach course, airspeed dropped, the autopilot disconnected and the stick pusher activated. The crew assumed an electrical malfunction and climbed to 7000 feet to sort the supposed malfunction out. After no malfunction was found, the crew attempted a third approach, again resulting in an EGPWS Too Low Alert and a go-around. Only now the crew discovered, that the first officer's QNH was still set to 1013 millibar instead of the aerodrom's 978 millibar prompting the first officer, who was pilot flying, to fly around 1000 feet too low. The false setting was corrected and a fourth approach attempted using the ILS to runway 32 circling to 14. On downwind to runway 14 a configuration alarm sounded, and during turn onto final the airplane banked 50 degrees triggered a bank angle warning with the airplane rolling out at heading 050 instead of 0130. Another go-around was performed, the captain now deciding to divert to Vaasa, where the airplane finally landed safely.

The captain had 50 hours on type with 3500 hours total flying time, and the first officer 80 hours on type. The airline had marked both pilots as inexperienced, and they should never have been paired, but that was overlooked because of rapid fleet expansion.

[Saintsman]

Good suggestion. Maybe we could extend it to experienced ground crew too, and experienced air trafficers and experience firemen and....

Jabiman, may I ask how many times you have turned a taxi away because you thought that the driver was not experienced enough?

[Lord Spandex Masher]

I only want to carry experienced passengers with a minimum of one million air miles.

This will aid the safety of other passengers, the crew and the aeroplane because these experienced passengers know what they are doing and what is required of them. This will eventually lead to a situation whereby cabin crew are no longer needed as the passengers will look after themselves and are able to correctly follow any emergency relevant procedures.

As inexperienced passengers are no longer allowed to fly eventually the number of experienced passengers will dwindle to the point where it is no longer necessary to operate aeroplanes anywhere in the world.

I'm on to you Mr Greenpeace!

[pwalhx]

As a relatively experienced passenger flying 50-60 times a year for the past 12 years this is the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard. If you are so concerned don't get on an aeroplane. Looks at the statistics about the safety of flying.

[Juan Tugoh]

I'm not really sure what your point is there Jabiman. The crew made some errors but in each case they made the right choice and put the aircraft in a safe position. Indeed the bottom line is that they landed safely. No pilot is born with limitless experience and ALL pilots make errors, indeed ALL crews make errors from the most inexperienced to the most experienced. The important thing is that they made safe choices, there are plenty of very experienced pilots that have killed themselves and their passengers because they have pressed on despite the warnings. This crew may not have perfect, they may have been inexperienced but there did the right thing and the article you quoted is reporting a few go-arounds and not a crash. I would rather fly with inexperienced pilots willing to admit they got it wrong and walk away than an experienced pilot that kills you because they cannot admit they screwed up.

Check out this link. In this case the experienced captain and flight engineer were both wrong and the inexperienced co-pilot was right. Experience can lead to complacency and is not, in itself, a measure of competence.

Ducks and Co-Pilots (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmFbneTAM_w)

[JWP1938]

What a load of s... er rubbish. When I use any type of service I don't normally check all the credentials of the person operating that service. I trust that the regulating authorities for that service has established that my operator is qualified. That's good enough for me and should be for you. If not, go another way.

[Tony Flynn]

Captain Jacob Veldhuyzen (http://www.theairlinepilots.com/flight/klmpanamdisaster.htm)was very experienced with rather a lot of hours.

[jeanyqua]

What a load of tosh....!!!!
You must have at some point experienced in your lifetime,that generally a person who has done a job a short time will have a more conscientious approach to their tasks,& the long termer will have become so accustomed to these tasks,they become complacent & are more liable to make a mistake/s.
Oh...and on my last flight (don/ams) whilst approaching the stairs i could see the pilot through the window,i smiled & a got a friendly wave...my first thoughts were oh noooooooo !!!,he's too happy,has he been on the wacky baccy..? :},& Omg !!!..he just took his hand off the controls :rolleyes:..Asif !!!

[cattleclass]

Jabiman, what planet are you on? I love the Idea of you checking a cab driver's licence, I'm sure they'ld all be fine with that:ugh:, But if you get on a flight, and I do, a lot, then you have to trust the system that has developed long and studied programmes to put pilots in the hot seat, and you can relax in 1A. It's not a menu option, it's common sense. Get a grip !
:rolleyes:

[Jabiman]

You must have at some point experienced in your lifetime,that generally a person who has done a job a short time will have a more conscientious approach to their tasks,& the long termer will have become so accustomed to these tasks,they become complacent & are more liable to make a mistake/s.
Have you had a look at this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/435356-air-india-express-incident.html

Looks at the statistics about the safety of flying.
Ok, I have at this web site:
Safety vs Driving (http://www.meretrix.com/~harry/flying/notes/safetyvsdriving.html)
The conclusion of which is (GA=general aviation):

driving: 1.32 fatal accidents and 1.47 fatalities per 100 million miles
airlines: .05 fatal accidents and 1.57 fatalities per 100 million miles
GA: 7.46 fatal accidents and 13.1 fatalities per 100 million miles I trust that the regulating authorities for that service has established that my operator is qualified. That's good enough for me and should be for you.
Not sure if this was ever true but it certainly is not now. In todays world companies are run to maximise profit and to pay managers fat bonuses. Most have no aviation experience and are running a risk/profit calculation where they try to balance maximum profit with minimal risk…but sometimes they get it wrong (greed is good anyone?)
Next you are going to tell me to trust the bankers because they are all too conservative to lend too much and send governments broke having to bail them out.

[peuce]

Jabiman, you are obviously not a politician, otherwise, you would know that you never ask a question ... unless you know what the answer will be!

In all fairness (someone has to be), perhaps your questions should have been more along the lines of ....

If you had a choice of airlines to fly on a particular route, would you select the one that recruits minimum 200 hour co-pilots ... or would you choose the one that recruits minimum 1500 hour co-pilots?

For the record, I think my preference would be the 1500 hour co-pilots.... but if the fare cost was a big differential, then, in all honesty, I might roll the dice ...

[Agaricus bisporus]

This is hilarious!

Its hard to comprehend the sheer vanity of anyone who believes he has the knowledge to judge the skill level of a pilot by how many hours he has. Even the most experienced examiner can't begin to do that!

[yellowperil]

Another question for you Jabiman...

Would you prefer a pilot with (say) 1,000 hours, or a pilot with the same hour 1,000 times :}

On a more serious note, I read something quite interesting in a gliding magazine about experience, age, and crashing... as far as I remember the problem went along the lines of the more experienced the pilot was, the less likely they were to crash, however, with that experience comes age. Older pilots began to crash more, despite (or even because of) their experience because when things began to go wrong, they drew on this experience (consciously or unconsciously) to get them out of a problem they'd encountered before, rather than what was happening at that time...

And regardless of experince, it's all about currency - why else do accident reports mention both the aircraft commander's total time, and time in the last 90 days?

[Airbus Girl]

The thing is, it is not true to say that experienced pilots have less chance of an accident than less experienced pilots. The world's worst air disaster had a Chief of Flight Training sitting in the left hand seat. The most recent A330 crash had a Captain on board who had 11,000 hours, including 1700 on type, and the FOs on that flight had 9,000 hours between them.
On the other hand, my mate, who had only around 1500 hours at the time, and very few on airliners, had an engine failure which was handled very well. He subsequently had another (different aeroplane!) and that was also handled very well.
I know very good low hours pilots and very bad "experienced" pilots.
Different people bring different things to a flight, and hours on jets is not the only denomination to look at. Someone who has had a wide variety of experience and can think outside the box whilst utilising the rest of the crew to the best of everyone's ability is likely to be the safest pilot.

How you think as a passenger that you would be able to determine that, god only knows!!!

I think a far more important issue, that is currently being buried by the airlines, is the issue of fatigue and training. There are certain airlines that I will not fly with, because I know just what kind of rosters those guys are flying, and fatigue is a far more dangerous issue.

[vctenderness]

I would humbly say that the best indicator of the quality of the pilot is the name on the side of the metal. BA, Virgin, Qantas, Lufthansa etc. etc.

Top end training and on going checks mean you can be assured of the best.

That is not to say that things cant go wrong whoever is at the controls but the top end airlines make the margin for error very small.

Don't forget There are old pilots and there are bold pilots but there are no old, bold pilots....sorry I'll get my coat:8

[PAXboy]

I saw the OP just minutes after it was posted and decided to sit back and enjoy the ride. OK, assuming that the OP is not Trolling ...

Most folks want to reduce risk in their lives - like the Americans want to use robots and drones to fight their wars and not have so many troops on the front line. It won't work but they are finding that our the hard way. So I think I understand what you are about but the best option is to choose very carefully your AIRLINE and the COUNTRY in which it is based and, possibly, who does their maintenance.

If I make a mistake in my job, whilst no one dies, it is certain that the people who witness the mistake will remember it for ever. I know, because I have made mistakes.

I have been doing my particular job for 19.5 years. I have also trained more than 100 people to do this highly specialised job, which involves some very delicate situations in human lives. I have spoken at international conferences and been interviewed live on Newsnight etc. On paper, I'm one of the most experienced people in the UK at what I do and, Yes, many people ask for me by name. People alter their arrangements to fit in with my availability. This is not bragging but fact.

BUT BUT BUT
I tell people, "Just because I'm experienced, doesn't mean I'm any good." I have to be good each and every time and, sometimes, I go home knowing that I have not done my best. But, to use the popular phrase, 'we all walked away from it'.

I have seen newer people than me doing brilliantly as much as I've seen old timers simply cranking the handle and turning out dross. This applies to every aspect of human activity.

[jeanyqua]

Good heavens Jabiman !!!!
I just noticed your situ is "terra firma"....you've gotta be having a laugh !!!
I truly believe that most forums have a resident troll...& with your last response,i just marked your card...!
I really dont want to respond any further on this thread,as i believe you just wanna stir the proverbial poopoo !!
Im sure there are other forums that would relish your hightly intelligent input,but im afraid i am under the impresssion that this site is a professional pilots forum,& it is rather insulting for you to be posting such drivel.
Im done !!!..Ttfn !!!

[fincastle84]

I've passed your question directly to Willie Walsh, the boss of BA. He has promised me he will give it his undivided attention & he will contact you directly to ascertain when you next intend to fly & on which route.

He will then offer you a selection of senior captains. Would you also like a choice of first officers & whether or not the CSD is a member of Bassa?

He will also ask his senior chef to contact you to decide on your preferred menu. He will also ensure that there is a brain surgeon on board in case you wish to change your mind.

[Jarvy]

Going on the same lines can I also choose the cabin crew, perhaps a little parade before boarding along the lines of miss world would do nicely.
No thought not.

[Jabiman]

I have heard the word troll bandied about a few times now and by definition it is so vague anyone who asks a question can be labelled that at whim (a bit like being called un-American – can be used to mean whatever the accuser wants it to mean).
I started this thread as a serious suggestion which was inspired by a senate inquiry into pilot standards in Australia: Pilot standards dive in low-cost era (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/pilot-standards-dive-in-lowcost-era-20101201-18gjc.html) and a pilot being sacked for voicing his concerns publicly: Jetstar sacked pilot Joe Eakins pulls out of Senate safety inquiry (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/sacked-pilot-pulls-out-of-senate-inquiry-20101201-18g3j.html)

My intention was never to criticise pilots but to highlight what the industry was doing to pilot standards and a possible way that the consumer could help to reverse this trend.
As things stand, we have no idea as to the quality or experience of pilot that any airlines are using and in fact some airlines are employing First Officers who are actually paying the airline to do their Line Training! So if my plane is being crewed by what is little more than a passenger then I think that I have the right to know and the right to choose by paying a little more and having an experienced crew. Again, no criticism of pilots but only of what the industry has become.

So far, of the serious responses to this suggestion we have had the following noteworthy replies:

Its hard to comprehend the sheer vanity of anyone who believes he has the knowledge to judge the skill level of a pilot by how many hours he has. Even the most experienced examiner can't begin to do that!
Fair enough, but we should have an indication if one of the two man flight crew is a trainee.

Would you prefer a pilot with (say) 1,000 hours, or a pilot with the same hour 1,000 times
Another good point, definitely the latter is preferable but I am not asking for information overload, just an indicator of experience.

fatigue is a far more dangerous issue.
Agreed, and you can bet that the airlines that have unreasonable rosters will also have scant regard for the pilots experience as long as they satisfy the regulatory minimum.
I would humbly say that the best indicator of the quality of the pilot is the name on the side of the metal. BA, Virgin, Qantas, Lufthansa etc. etc.
This is certainly a good way to fly but it is not always possible especially on minor routes or if they are fully booked already or if we are indeed trying to save some money.
Also, with the run of bad luck that Qantas has had recently, is it related to their off shoring of maintenance? We will never know and don’t want to know but if they start to try to make money by lowering pilot standards then I DO want to know and if my suggestion is implemented it will become visible.

I have seen newer people than me doing brilliantly as much as I've seen old timers simply cranking the handle and turning out dross. This applies to every aspect of human activity.
This is true to a certain extent, maybe we should also include access to the pilots ages. Just kidding, not sure how this could be solved short of reintroducing mandatory retirement ages though I will add that there are a lot of unemployed experienced pilots because their jobs are being taken by pay to fly cadets and this is the trend that I want to reverse by making the airline crewing practises more transparent.

Can i just say, although i really, REALLY enjoyed being a CC, it's because of people like you and Jib Wotsit i decided to quit flying and pursue another career. What a shame, i was a very good cabin crew too!
You must be Steven Slater.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Fair enough, but we should have an indication if one of the two man flight crew is a trainee.

So where would you suggest inexperienced pilots get their experience from?

Training is a necessary requirement, where else should they be trained?

Bearing in mind that the experienced pilots all had zero hours before they started.

[dwshimoda]

ATS - couldn't agree more. I fly for a company that doesn't have such a prestigious name on the side, yet I couldn't fault our training or safety departments. Such airlines as are being lauded by vctenderness could possibly survive a hull loss - i doubt we could.

As to Jabiman, how dare you question abilities and experiences, and think that you are in a position to judge? I see in your last post you attempt to qualify it, but you really don't have a clue.

2 questions:

1) What do you do for a living Jabiman?

2) When you are ill and go to the doctors, do you request any kind of document showing your docs experience / skills / hours on "type"?

Best regards,

an FO. (low to medium hours, with a few "interesting" experiences that hopefully are starting to give me some real experience - perhaps you can judge as to how well I am doing?)

[PAXboy]

JabimanI have heard the word troll bandied about a few times now and by definition it is so vague anyone who asks a question can be labelled that at whimThat is incorrect and it is very easy to find the definition:

Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29)

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

So, if you are not a Troll you have a thick skin!

[Jabiman]

how dare you question abilities and experiences, and think that you are in a position to judge? What do you do for a living Jabiman?
Not sure how this is relevant as this part of the forum is for SLF. But for the record I am not a professional pilot though I am currently learning to fly.

2) When you are ill and go to the doctors, do you request any kind of document showing your docs experience / skills / hours on "type"?
Before going to a doctor I will find out how long he has been practicing and what degrees he or she has AND how much I will be charged. This is a basic consumer right.

Please, pretty please, go and have your head examined. For the love of God, please!
If I do, then I will first be sure to examine the credentials of the said psychiatrist….in fact, don’t these medical practitioners have their certificates framed on the wall behind their desk?

So where would you suggest inexperienced pilots get their experience from?
Training is a necessary requirement, where else should they be trained?
Bearing in mind that the experienced pilots all had zero hours before they started.
Ahhhh…SPM, what an insightful post. There you hit the nail on the head, where indeed?
But this is a problem which is inherent in almost every profession, the old I need experience to be employed but no one will employ me because I have no experience conundrum.
If a newly graduated brain surgeon is looking for work, then he wont be going into private practice so what to do? Apply in the public system where he can perfect his art or alternatively, go overseas and work for free in some third world country to gain the requisite skill to come back home and earn the mega bucks.

So why should the piloting profession be any different?
The traditional path in the USA, Canada and Australia was for the neophyte aviator to get a job in (GA) General Aviation or overseas where wages were low but it was a sort of apprenticeship. Upon attainment of experience they would hope to be hired by an airline which would come with a suitable increase in remuneration.
This learning experience may explain the higher accident rate in GA in this summary which is based on USA statistics which I posted earlier:

driving: 1.32 fatal accidents and 1.47 fatalities per 100 million miles
airlines: .05 fatal accidents and 1.57 fatalities per 100 million miles
GA: 7.46 fatal accidents and 13.1 fatalities per 100 million miles Do we really want all these apprentice pilots learning their trade through trial and error in the airlines rather than GA? If so, shouldn’t the consumer be the one to decide and to pay more for a ticket which would ensure a experienced crew?

[TightSlot]

Like PAXboy, I viewed the arrival of this thread with a certain jaded resignation - It was only ever going in one direction. The period of its' existence has almost exactly coincided with a round trip to LAX and back which lends a somewhat surreal edge to the thing.

Jabiman - the problem is that your criterion for assessing the likelihood of an accident is flawed: Whilst some accidents have a lack of experience as a possible contributory factor, many do not. It is the attempt to isolate the root cause of possible accidents that is faulty: They are complicated incidents, virtually always resulting from a combination of circumstances that cannot be reverse-engineered on a theoretical basis, in advance of the incident. That is the point - if they could be, the accident would probably never occur. In making your decision as to whether to fly with a particular carrier on a specific flight, you would also require access to maintenance records, employment history, NOTAM's, MET forecasts and airline SOP's each time, in order to make anything approaching an informed assessment.

I was tempted to move or close this thread, but it has been generating some traffic, so I'll leave it for a while. It may, or may not, be troll droppings - I guess we'll see as time passes. Now - it's time for a double espresso in an attempt to blast my way back into UK time!

:zzz:

[Joao da Silva]

Perhaps the interesting aspect is that this is happening already.

The de-regulation of air travel in the US destabilized the old order and it spread across to Europe in the form of 'locos.'

Whilst it may not be an overt choice (like how many hold bags, priority boarding etc), intuitively I think most air travellers understand that choosing a loco means more likelyhood of encountering an inexperienced pilot (although it is not exclusive to locos and pilots build experience under strict supervision on many airlines) and people seem to vote with their cash.

In conclusion, so long as the system is safe (and people have crude ways of judging that, which industry members may not rate too highly), then it appears that people will choose to have a less experienced crew, for a lower ticket cost.

Whether this reflects reality is a nother matter.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Do we really want all these apprentice pilots learning their trade through trial and error in the airlines rather than GA? If so, shouldn’t the consumer be the one to decide and to pay more for a ticket which would ensure a experienced crew?

It's not trial and error. It is completely relevant training to the same standard across every airline.

Unfortunately GA experience is utterly irrelevant when you're sitting in an airliner, it's a completely different type of operation.

Would you rather have a GA pilot with ten thousand of hours of irrelevant experience (but using your criteria 'experienced') and two hundred hours of relevant experience flying you around or a thousand hour airline pilot who has received quality training, has been subject to several simulator checks, ongoing assesments and gaining relevant experience for the job at hand?

Perfecting the art of wanging a puddle jumper around VFR is NOT relevant to operating an airliner in controlled airspace in one of the most highly regulated industries in the world.

[Agaricus bisporus]

I wonder why you picked Ethiopian Airlines? Because it sounds "backward" perhaps? Ethiopia being well known as a backward country, after all...
and posessing probably the next best airline in Africa after SAA. They're trained to Lufthansa standards I believe, and are pretty damn good by anyone's reckoning. I'd not think twice about flying Ethiopian, and there's only one other African carriers I'd say that about.
Personally I'd choose BA over Lufty too, but thats just a cultural thing.

[dwshimoda]

Not sure how this is relevant as this part of the forum is for SLF. But for the record I am not a professional pilot though I am currently learning t

I'm interested as you are happy to give your views on how our profession should be reported on. I'm interested in your profession so I can understand how I can judge your experience.

[PAXboy]

I'm glad TS that your work kept you away from us, because this thread is such good fun. It's been a long time since we've had a chance to tear a subject to shreds and a bit of blood letting is no bad thing. :}

Now, if you'd just like to go back to the crew resting quarters and ignore the call bells from the cabin for just a bit longer ... :E

[Joao da Silva]

dwshimoda

I'm a marketing director and I commission regular market surveys that convince me that most of our customers make uninformed decisions, based on lack of understanding.

Why should your industry be any different?

I have long since stopped worrying about it, as it is exactly the same situation for our competitors.

[Torque Tonight]

This thread falls so firmly in the 'dumbass sh1t' category that I'm really not sure that writing a sensible reply is a worthwhile use of my time.

So Jabiman, as this is all you're getting from me for now, could you please explain to me where future experienced airline pilots will come from if you do not also currently have less experienced airline pilots? How many flying hours were you born with?

Given that both the new airline pilot and the new brain surgeon have reached the requirements set by their regulatory bodies, what do you know that they don't?

Are the hours that I have logged hand-flying battlefield helicopters around Iraq, at low level, at night, on goggles, getting shot at, equally valuable to the hours that I now log at FL350, with the autopilot engaged, reading a newspaper and drinking a coffee? How do you propose to factor this in? Will the pilots' logbooks be downloadable from the airline booking pages?

If you are a regular air traveller you WILL have flown on flights where training is taking place, whether that be a flag-carrier or a loco, and you will have been none the wiser.

[Jabiman]

I'm interested as you are happy to give your views on how our profession should be reported on. I'm interested in your profession so I can understand how I can judge your experience.
Lets just say I am a consumer advocate who is surprised by the state of the worldwide aviation industry.

Unfortunately GA experience is utterly irrelevant when you're sitting in an airliner, it's a completely different type of operation.
That is an incorrect statement and is the line that the airlines are trying to push in an effort to justify their current course of action. Learning to fly a Cessna and then jumping into a jet is one way to ensure that said pilot has learnt little or no airmanship. This quality is impossible to train and only comes with experience but in an emergency situation can mean the difference between life and death.

Whilst some accidents have a lack of experience as a possible contributory factor, many do not
Agreed but all the other factors we will never have any influence over but the pilot experience is one that we hopefully we may. And an airline that cuts costs by employing minimally trained pilots on minimum pay is also going to skimp on the others so this will become readily apparent.

could you please explain to me where future experienced airline pilots will come from if you do not also currently have less experienced airline pilots?
There is already an oversupply which just continues to grow as integrated training continues to churn out young hopefuls who have no chance of getting a job unless they shell out more for line training etc.
Assuming the pilot profession is subject to the laws of supply and demand, then that is the reason that a FO is paid so little, there are just too many of them.

[west lakes]

Statistics and their use has always interested me. Now as far as I can see from this site GA is basically all flying that is non-scheduled or charter airline

So within the high statistics for GA flying quoted I can't help but wonder the proportion of CPL vs PPl license holders within it.

That Loco airlines are seen to be all low hours pilots surprises me, certainly I know of pilots with hours into 5 figures flying for them, a higher degree of monitoring of their actions electronically and a 1 strike and out attitude, some of these the legacy carriers don't have which would suggest a lower attitude to safety and compliance monitoring than the locos.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

That is an incorrect statement and is the line that the airlines are trying to push in an effort to justify their current course of action. Learning to fly a Cessna and then jumping into a jet is one way to ensure that said pilot has learnt little or no airmanship. This quality is impossible to train and only comes with experience but in an emergency situation can mean the difference between life and death.

Actually it has always been the case that GA is completely dissimilar to commercial operations.

Learning to fly in a Cessna and then continuing to...err...what? Oh I know, continue to fly a Cessna, single pilot, VFR, unregulated and uncomplicated has no bearing whatsoever on flying a heavy jet commercially except, up, down, left, right, faster, slower. Dealing with an emergency in a Cessna is akin to plonking it down in a field. Deaing with an emergency in an airliner is a highly complex, coordinated effort between several agencies, crew and passengers. GA experience is just useless.

You might like to know that when I was a 150 hour co-pilot on a heavy jet I actually prevented an experienced captain - with several thousand hours in GA and maybe a thousand hours in airliners - controlling the aircraft quite accurately into the middle of a mountain. Lack of SA, lack of CRM, unwillingness to follow SOPs, doing what he usually did in GA which was his own thing and had been ingrained into his operating attitude. Tell me, how much airmanship did this guy gain from his previous experience?

Several years later I was a captain flying with the same bloke who had been demoted (finally) because he couldn't and wouldn't operate as the company expected - although why he is still flying is beyond me. On one occasion, due to a slow vacating aircraft, we carried out a go around, about half way through the manouver, climbing well, gear coming up etc., the preceeding aircraft had vacated the runway and he suggested that I should over power the autothrottle disconnect the autopilot and land.:ugh:

You would seriously prefer that man to be in charge of your flight? I ask because using your criteria you would choose him over a well trained, qualified and capable airline pilot with less hours.

[TightSlot]

In the absence of any fresh, relevant or convincing arguments from Jabiman this thread is now closed: There is a clear consensus.

A search of his/her previous posts will reveal that questioning pilot training is something of a hobby horse.