Should Average Pilot Experience Levels Of Each Airline Be Public?

[Tourist]

What idiot decided that experience should be counted in hours or sectors?

Your average 2000hr military pilot has "experienced" more events of different types than an airline pilot with 20,000hrs.

[Wirbelsturm]

I would also humbly suggest that experience is gathered within the theatre you fly not necessarily the equipment you fly and for how long you fly it. You get more 'comfortable' the longer you are on a specific aircraft but that's about it.

Fast jet jockeys gain experience very quickly within their particular sphere of aviation and the same can be said for HEMS, SAR, Relief flying, Christian aid, instructing etc. etc. etc.

The trick is being able to draw on these experiences from differing scenarios and apply them in an acceptable manner into the current environment that you fly. Personality and 'approachability' figure massively in this bit of the equation.

Experience can be gained in many ways but the application of that experience is the key. Hours can be totally irrelevant it's just a filter.

[Tourist]

I agree that experience is gathered in any particular theatre, however due to the laudable improvements in engineering and standards worldwide, that experience gathers in a glacial manner in the airline world.
Experience is gathered not from seeing the same thing a million times (though more than once is a benefit) so much as how many things you see.

During my time in an airline I was taught about many emergencies by instructors who were excellent in technique but had no experience of said emergency.

The reality of engine failures/fire, smoke in the cockpit, decompression, bird strike, death on board, diversions etc are never the same as potted exercises.

I also noticed that the quality of those I flew with bore no relation to their hours.

[Wirbelsturm]

Tourist,

I would wholeheartedly agree with you. Airliners are designed to operate in an environment with very wide safety margins, and quite rightly too. Hence actual experience gained from real life events is, indeed, limited if you have only ever flown airliners.

Simulator practice is all well and good however we seem to have come to a position where many airline pilots 'practice' hand flying in the real aircraft to 'prepare' for the simulator check. Somewhat back to front in my opinion but the sim check has become more of a hoop jumping/box ticking exercise rather than a tool for the dissemination of useful skills, practice and information.

All IMHO of course.

[AirRabbit]

With Appologies for the Length of the Following:

Originally Posted by kungfu panda

Should Average Pilot Experience Levels Of Each Airline Be Public?
________________________________________
I'm not trying to argue the benefit of experience or not but the first issue the media was interested in after both the Asiana accident and the Malaysian disappearance was the experience level of the crews.

It seems to me that Pilot experience is of public interest and to maintain transparency in the industry would it not be reasonable for an experience league table to exist for use by the media?

Originally Posted by Bealzebub

I posted the following answer in another thread, but copy it below.
Quote:
The Colgan captain had around 3,300 hours and the first officer 2,200 hours. On Air France the captain had 11,000 hours and the two f/o's 6,600 and 3,000 hours respectively. Not a single one of these pilots would have been precluded by a 1500 hour minimum tariff. The Colgan captain had a history of numerous failed check rides during his training and was regularly commuting some 1200 miles from his home in Florida. The first officer was also regularly commuting 3000 miles from her home in Seattle. Fatigue was cited as a likely contributory factor.

WOW! Where to begin?

By all media accounts of almost any accident or incident, it would seem that kungfu panda is asking a very logical question. Also, it would seem that the responders on this thread (so far, anyway), understand the direction of “KP’s” question and understand the proper direction that the answer should take. By that I mean that certainly “experience” is a factor that should, in some way, be able to provide some knowledge about the competency of an individual flight crew member. But, again, most of the responders recognize the futility in “hanging one’s hat” on the word experience. The dictionary defines this word as follows:

Experience – the process of doing and seeing things and of having things happen to you; the skill or knowledge that you get by doing something; the length of time that you have spent doing something (such as a particular job).

What is obviously missing is any quantifiable reference indicating the demarcation between “inexperienced” and “experienced.” To that point, Bealzebub pretty much shot down the “specifics” that the FAA have recently adopted in a rather flimsy attempt to appear to have correctly responded to perhaps the most easily recognized issue – very likely chosen on the basis of hoping to appear as being “responsive” to a public that wanted to see a tangible difference in regulatory standards. The experience factor that the FAA settled upon in this “rush to appear to have been responsive,” was likely thought to have been seen as having “raised the bar” for that illusive factor, and thereby, having fulfilled their responsibility. I probably don’t need to point out that the aviation business has much more than a little familiarity with participants observing someone having done something (dare I say “everything”?) the wrong way for at least some, perhaps a major portion (?), of their career – and in addition to those cases where something is not “physically seen” to be “different,” there is a hidden aspect … that of what is “thought,” “interpreted,” “analyzed,” and/or “concluded” prior to any physically recognized action being taken … which can easily confuse or aggravate any on-going issue. In these cases, a particular response to a given set of circumstances may not be recognized by an observer OR the one performing the function … until something goes wrong or partially wrong, and then what has been ‘adopted’ as a ‘satisfactory way’ to accomplish that particular task turns out to be wholly inappropriate, or ineffective, or aggravating the existing circumstance! More on this below…

On the other hand, the comment published by Bealzebub appears to be focusing on something that he may believe should have been directly addressed in that regulatory change - fatigue. It’s my opinion that the only direct regulatory change that could have been even somewhat beneficial to this specific circumstances would be to have changed the rules to require something like a minimum of 10 hours (pick a number) of uninterrupted rest at the location of the flight’s origination. But that opens a whole new set of concerns (a “can of worms” as we say in the Colonies) because someone living in New York or Atlanta or Chicago would still have to endure a pretty decent amount of commute time from their “residence” to the airport – which could easily affect “pre-departure rest” capability. In fact, there are some airplane commutes from other states in the US that take less time than automobile commutes from within the same city! Sure there are weather cancellations of flights, but there are also highway accidents that could result in the same kind of delay. This would leave the only option as a “commuter crash pad” kind of life-style … which often is not much better, if any at all, than “crashing” in the crew lounge at the departure airport. Bottom line, there is little available for the legitimate substitution for wisdom.

Originally Posted by Calmcavok

The regulator should be held to account as each airline abides by the regulator. Case in point, the FAA post-Colgan. But does 1500hrs maketh the pilot, probably not. That's a different argument.

While the first thought is laudable … and hopefully already exists … however, it likely exists to varying extents depending on the airline and the local regulatory authority. However, the second thought (the Colgan-generated flight time minimums to provide adequate “experience”) would only be valid IF there were some way to verify that this number would ensure a leveling of vast amounts of differences – in background, in training processes, in airplanes flown, and almost everything else. The fact is that they are relying on the regulatory requirement for “flight hours” as the understood level of competence, even though they use the word “experience.”

Requiring any specific number of flight hours to ensure that pilots have a specific level of competence, may sound simple and straight-forward, but it is, most certainly, at least questionable, given the degree of variability in backgrounds and the almost limitless variances in the kinds of flight time that exists across the airline industry. I am at a loss to understand how 1500, as a number, does anything other than occupy the space between 1499 and 1501.

Originally Posted by Tourist

The reality of engine failures/fire, smoke in the cockpit, decompression, bird strike, death on board, diversions etc. are never the same as potted exercises.

A very accurate observation … but I would point out that if the instructor is using those exercises to provide merely the awareness of knowledge, little more than that awareness is likely to be achieved. The fact is that there are different aspects of the same task where different types of information processing is required on the part of the individual student pilot. This classification system is “the skill, rule, and knowledge based (SRK) approach.” When used correctly, the system can provide a useful framework for identifying the types of error likely to occur in different operational situations.

In the “knowledge based mode,” the individual carries out a task in an almost completely conscious manner. This would occur in a situation where a beginning pilot was performing the task or where an experienced pilot was faced with a completely novel situation. In either case, the pilot would have to exert considerable mental effort to assess the situation, and his or her responses are likely to be slow. Also, after each control or other action, the pilot has to review the effect before taking any further or supplementary action, which would probably further slowdown the responses to the situation.

The “skill based mode” refers to the smooth execution of highly practiced, largely physical actions in which there is virtually no (at least very little) conscious monitoring. Skill based responses are generally initiated by some specific event, e.g. the requirement to move a switch, to turn off an audible alarm, or the adjustment of a flight control to raise the pitch or aileron control to level the wings. The highly practiced operation of those actions will then be executed largely without conscious thought.

The “rule based mode,” is another category of information processing, and, not surprisingly, is based on established rules. These rules are most typically covered in ground school (either in a classroom or remote) and are often learned as a result of interacting with some form of physical training device, after reading or reviewing those rules understanding or by working with experienced process workers. The level of conscious control is intermediate between that of the knowledge and skill based modes.

I do not believe that every instructor teaching pilots – either ground instructors or flight instructors – should be required to be knowledgeable about nor consciously use this SRK approach. However, I DO believe that the person who is responsible for developing the instructional materials, assembling the instructional curriculum, planning the operational scenarios and their logical sequences (plural), and either instructs or oversees the instruction of the ground and flight instructors should be conversant with and understand these relationships. Additionally, as I’ve said many times on this forum, having an internationally established set of criteria for pilot training, instructor training, and evaluator training should be at the bedrock of any airline training program anywhere in the world.

Originally Posted by Wirbelsturm

Simulator practice is all well and good however we seem to have come to a position where many airline pilots 'practice' hand flying in the real aircraft to 'prepare' for the simulator check. Somewhat back to front in my opinion but the sim check has become more of a hoop jumping/box ticking exercise rather than a tool for the dissemination of useful skills, practice and information.
All IMHO of course.

Sir, you win my award for “Practical Recognition of Airline Pilot Deficiencies” – and I don’t give that out very frequently! As an industry, we seem to have become overly dependent on the simulator to do and provide everything and anything of merit with respect to pilot training. Of course, I remain convinced of the value of simulation – and there are very few other aspects of modern training that are more important or more valuable than a well-constructed, well-programmed, and well-used flight simulation device … provided it is used within its capabilities, and used by well-trained and knowledgeable instructors/evaluators. Unfortunately, because there are many in this industry who are paid on the basis of providing flight crew members “ready to fly the line,” where that readiness is determined by, and sometimes only by, the satisfactory completion of training and having satisfactorily completed a flight evaluation (test), most probably relying on (sometimes exclusively) a flight simulator. Sometimes, such reliance can be narrowly viewed and miss some aspect that may become a weak-link that can develop into a potentially disastrous circumstance.

The kinds of things I’ve observed include what I’ve called “cheat-sheet” values and sequences provided to eager, “would-be” pilots who are only looking to find a definitive way to complete the training or pass the check ride. Unfortunately, those practices cannot regularly detect and/or eliminate wrongly learned or wrongly practiced flight tasks and the basic understanding of those tasks as they should be applied to line operations. Other “cheat-sheet” kinds of circumstances have included the use of the programmed capabilities of the simulator to ensure a satisfactory performance – or have included a “suggested” manner of control application and power settings to accomplish a specific kind of task or maneuver. Other circumstances involve the substitution of one task or procedure for other, required tasks or procedures, on the basis that similar control applications are used – an example might be the substituting of low altitude windshear recoveries for recoveries from stalls or approaches to stall.

Other factors, somewhat less noticeable but may be just as dangerously depended upon, is, as Wirbelsturm has described, demanding that pilots use automatic systems almost exclusively until the pilot is within a short time-proximity of having a recurrent simulator training or simulator test – and then strongly suggesting that manual flight controls be used until after that simulator exposure. While this may not be immediately recognized as a “cheat-sheet” methodology to “verify” pilot competency – it is, clearly, a last-ditch effort to ensure the pilot has an opportunity to become “re-familiarized” with what manual control of the airplane is really like … which, in effect does little more than provide a kind of “cover-up” of any potentially more serious lack of understanding of recognition, analysis, decision, and responsive action that simply has to take place 100% of the time when sitting at one of the pilot control positions on an airplane flight deck.

We certainly don’t need, and would, no doubt, be foolish to depend upon, pilots with a skill set that is “spun-up” only occasionally, and then only to ensure that the pilot will be able to complete the training or pass the check.

[angelorange]

Burning holes in the sky on automation and ticking SIM boxes

Far too many look down from their lofty FL350 FAR/JAR25 cockpits or 1G "full motion" SIM boxes to criticize the humble flying instructor for burning holes in the sky in light aircraft. However, it is the huge number of hours flown on reliable automation, deep inside the aircraft's manouevre envelope and potted tick in the box style SIM checks that have led to a degradation of pilot flying skills and a spate of LOCI accidents that Boeing suggests have killed some 2000 people in Western Jet Airliners over a 10 year period.


These are sometimes the ones who promote the zero to hero/ MPL schemes in favour of self improver/ apprenticeship routes.

However, AF447 is a case in point with both FO and SO having JAR integrated course and minimal pre-automated Airbus flying time before the tragic event.


The truth about the Colgan Q400 is also far more nuanced than BZB's comment suggests.

It was not simply a fatigue accident ( from www.operationorange.org/colganQ&A.pdf )

How long before the Colgan Air/Continental Connection 3407 did the
captain commute to Newark?

Ans: 3 days

How long was the captain’s rest period between the end of his crew
pairing on February 11 and the scheduled report time for the crew pairing
that contained Continental Connection 3407 on February 12?

Ans. 21 hours 16 minutes

According to the NTSB, how much sleep did the 24 year old first
officer receive in the 24 hours prior to the crash of Continental Connection
3407, and how long had she been awake prior to the crash?

Ans. 9 hours / 9 hours

What was the experience level of the captain, when he applied for
employment with Colgan Air?

Ans. 618 hours, Gulfstream Training Academy, failed initial instrument
rating, failed single engine-land rating, failed multi engine-land rating,
graded “unsatisfactory” on two simulator sessions at GTA covering:
approach to stall-landing configuration, unacceptable altitude and
airspeed control, with repeated deviations.

NB: Gulfstream TA "job" on B1900 was P2F : Is P2F "customer" / voluntary worker always right if when they fail?

How much actual instrument time did the first officer have when she
applied for employment with Colgan Air?


Ans. 6 hours

How much experience did the first officer have with icing conditions
prior to her employment with Colgan Air?

Ans. None.

[polax52]

Well it is again clear that in light of the recent events; Airline pilot experience is of great interest to the media and public. Testing is not sufficient to replace experience.

[mikehammer]

Whilst I might tend to agree with you in general regarding experience, that is somewhat a sweeping statement about the recent accident before any facts as to the background of the accused and deceased first officer have actually been established, nor the investigation concluded into the cause of the crash.

[Bealzebub]

Well it is again clear that in light of the recent events; Airline pilot experience is of great interest to the media and public. Testing is not sufficient to replace experience.

Your experience as an "airline pilot" has no correlation to your desire to wilfully commit an atrocity based on your mental health, political or religious affiliations, or indeed anything else.

Historical examples have highlighted that time and time again.

Despite some extraordinary conjectures proffered for this particular event, the level of the pilots "airline experience" isn't realistically likely to be causal.

Do you honestly think that if both pilots flying experience had been available to any of the passengers there would have been a single one who would have changed their travel plans? I don't! I certainly wouldn't have done!

This is a high profile event that provides a platform for the Aerotoxic / Pay to fly / Drone worriers / etc. brigades, to torture in order to suit their own political platforms.

[Superpilot]

Do you honestly think that if both pilots flying experience had been available to any of the passengers there would have been a single one who would have changed their travel plans? I don't! I certainly wouldn't have done!

No they wouldn't but rightly or wrongly, most would be alarmed. Again, not for a legitimate reason, I grant you, but because their long held belief that the best airlines mostly hire experienced and mature pilots would be challenged.

[Bealzebub]

Not really. Most wouldn't have a clue whether 600 or 6000 was a lot. Nor should it concern them. Along with "smoking holes" and "magenta lines" it is a theoretical hypothesis used as vehicle to transport the agenda of the disaffected, rather than meaningful information used to transport the general populace.

[angelorange]

Af447 and gliders

John_Smith,

Speaking with one of the chief BEA AF447 investigators at the RAeS it appears that the SO had minimal GA/gliding experience and that was in the dim and distant past. The Captain on teh other hand had a varied and more traditional background.

Certainly the SOs actions were far from what any glider pilot would do.

Strangely on the most recent SIM check they were given unreliable airspeed drill based on ADIRS issues on the exact same route as that tragic flight.


Had EASA copied the FAA and introduced the 1500h rule here then the MPL would not have seen the light of day unless there was a long term commitment from a hiring large airline to see a cadet through an apprentice like career in GA.

In addition LoCo airlines would not be able to exploit cadets on zero time contracts or the dreaded P2Fpax schemes that demanding 500h on type has created.

A decent pilot can fly an Extra 300L, a DC3, a B200, a B737, or operate as an effective A380 crew member. But unless you have exact hours on exact type with currency then no EU airline is interested. In fact they prefer a self funded MPL cadet........Contrast this with FAA rules and see how most jet jobs in the USA do not demand TR or hours on type up front. Yes the pay is much poorer than a LoCo self employed Captain in the EU but overall it's a fairer system.

[polax52]

Originally Posted by Bealzebub

Not really. Most wouldn't have a clue whether 600 or 6000 was a lot. Nor should it concern them. Along with "smoking holes" and "magenta lines" it is a theoretical hypothesis used as vehicle to transport the agenda of the disaffected, rather than meaningful information used to transport the general populace.

So you believe that you are entitled to Police the information that the media and the public should receive as in your opinion that information would confound them. BS, every post you make indicates a vested interest.

Miles O'Brien on CNN, quite correctly said that a 600 hour Pilot is an infant and should not be left alone on the flight deck of an A320.

[Bealzebub]

No, I don't believe I have either an entitlement or a duty to police anything, outside of those responsibilities I am properly charged with.

Miles O'Brien on CNN, quite correctly said that a 600 hour Pilot is an infant and should not be left alone on the flight deck of an A320.

I am not sure who Miles O'Brien is, but I would take serious issue with that statement in isolation. I say that with some reservation, because you are clearly attracted to the quotes of sound bite television and (as demonstrated in your reply above) erroneous assumption, and in its full context it may well mean something more?

The number of hours a pilot has accumulated is irrelevant to whether they should be left alone on the flight deck or not. I have never had any doubt (and by "any" I mean not one iota) that in the event of my incapacitation the pilot in the other seat would have any difficulty at all in taking command and flying that airliner to a suitable airport. I haven't had any doubt for the last 30 years, and I doubt I will for the time remaining to me. Nor do I have any doubt that they would be perfectly capable of dealing with an en-route engine failure, decompression or a myriad of other issues of their own volition, should such a situation ever arise.

If I did have any doubt, it would be assuaged by the fact that they had already demonstrated that ability in simulated training prior to them ever flying with me, and would continue to do so at six monthly cycles.

If I tell a random sample of my neighbours or non-flying friends how many hours I have accumulated over the years, the general response would be "is that a lot?" simply because it isn't a subject most people are well versed in. It is rather like telling people the age of the aircraft they are flying in. Many people will simply equate it to something they are familiar with (such as their car) and assume that 7 years, 10, years, 15 years, 20 years (take your pick) is a lot. Perhaps the age of the aircraft should be notified as well, or maybe the number of cycles, or airframe hours. Does it mean anything in isolation or (yet again,) is it simply a number you want to distort to suit your own agenda?

I have no particular problem with each and every passenger knowing the flying experience of myself or any other member of the crew, but why? How does it help make an informed decision if the information is in isolation? Further, having told them how many hours the airplane, captain, and F/O have amassed over their respective lifetimes, what happens when it all changes 90 minutes before the flight takes off (as it so often does)?

Nobody tells me how old the train I travel on is, or how old the driver is, or how long he has been driving for that company. Likewise the bus I get on, the cruise ship I holiday on, the taxi that picks me up. The premise is simply ludicrous!

Sorry the reply is a bit longer than a one line sound bite. I guess that is why Miles O'Brien is on CNN and I am not.


PS. I did Google Miles O'Brien and (having misspelt the surname) was initially slightly stunned to discover your source might have been the Chief Engineer of the Star ship Enterprise! However I note you are referring to the respected CNN journalist, and private pilot!

[Cliff Secord]

Well it is again clear that in light of the recent events; Airline pilot experience is of great interest to the media and public. Testing is not sufficient to replace experience.

What a stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid statement. Did I say it was stupid? On what level do you believe maybe 8000 hours or 15000 hours shields you psychiatric problems? For example, does 8000 hours at work make you more robust when it comes to personal bereavement? Of course it doesn't you pillock. Nor would it bare any affect on schizophrenia or such mental afflictions.

Have you actually thought this through? Ring up Daily mail or Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2. They'll give you a job. Doughhead dot to dot thinking is their bread and butter.

[peacekeeper]

Good airlines train to a high standard regardless of experience. If your not good enough you don't pass, simple as that. Hours only matter if they were accumulated in an airline with a good safety culture.

[polax52]

Originally Posted by peacekeeper

Good airlines train to a high standard regardless of experience. If your not good enough you don't pass, simple as that. Hours only matter if they were accumulated in an airline with a good safety culture.

I am disappointed with the above 3 posts they reflect a modern disdain for experienced professionals. Regarding the recent incident; we are still awaiting a conclusion from the investigation, so to jump to conclusions such as it was a psychiatric event is entirely unprofessional.

The reason that the public should have information on experience levels is that they have dropped to historically low levels and these levels are alarming. The testing is not fit for purpose as there is almost no failure rate which is a huge culture change from 20 or more years ago. If you were just to teach somebody to pass one of these simulator tests , you could probably have them reach the required level in a week from scratch. That would not make them safe to be left alone in the flight deck of an Airliner.

I look forward to receiving some more abusive replies.

[cgwhitemonk11]

For current context to those of you who say there is no issue with current training standards....

I am currently flying for an airline in the UK, lets leave the name out please, and while i did complete an integrated course, before joining said airline i flew para drop, bush flying and small tp airliners.

I would consider myself no better than average and make the odd mistake still despite being here awhile now. Over the last week I am having poor performing FO's who joined the company long before me, from the company's cadet scheme, being hauled off the line to sit on the jumpseat behind me as their performances are not up to standard and their handling skills are poor at best.

You cannot protect against the kind of tragic incident that has happened but we can and should use it as an opportunity to highlight the deficiencies in our industry and hope the regulators do the right thing and follow the Americans.

[peacekeeper]

I think it is in bad taste to make a tragedy like this fit to an ongoing argument about Cadets to prove a point. This tragedy had nothing to do with experience levels, it was affected by mental health and a policy that allows for a single person to be left on the flight deck. It could easily have been the Captain who did the same if he had been the one suffering from a very deep mental instability (remember the Jetblue Captain). The company I fly for changed the policy on toilet breaks immediately and I'm sure many others have as well. There will probably be tighter control on mental health checks both on annual medicals and during recruitment now and this again will address the direct problem that caused this incident.

As for experience levels, there is no doubt that having experience in the area of operation you fly is important. I have often thought that we do things the wrong way around in aviation. The procedural and automated world of airline flying is very clear and can be well trained in the simulator, flying older turbo props requires more hand flying and better raw data IFR skills, and instructing requires experience to pass onto a student. However the pay is in favour of the reverse order. A new pilot has to get experience in one of these areas or come from a military background, he/she will be inexperienced when they start and could likely have passengers onboard. The training environment of an airline is a good place to start in my opinion, once of course they have been through strict selection, a CAA approved training course and a thorough line training programme and passed to the companies standard. Then it comes down to trust in the airlines training programme.

I went through the instructor, turbo prop, Jet route and can speak from experience of flying with many cadets who all seem intelligent, well trained and willing to learn. I also fly with many experienced FO's who come from different backgrounds who are a vital part of keeping overall company experience levels high.

[Avenger]

"Should Average Pilot Experience Levels Of Each Airline Be Public?"

Probably covered before, however, what's the exact benefit to the public knowing this? lets take the case of a 20000 Hr Boeing pilot that converts to Airbus, experience no effectively zero on type, probably less aware than a 100 hr cadet with time on type..of course, one could argue " overall experience in the industry" but then we also incorporate all the jurassic hobby flyers retired from the majors dozing half the flight, or the guys only used to procedural ILS city to city now flapping around in " less developed countries" for pin money, If this type of information is made public several things happen" Marketing depts TV ads " or pilots are THE most experienced" Insurance companies have excuses for premium hikes, airlines simply dodge the ball.. really can't see any useful purpose here. My Daughter is a newly qualified doctor, should we extend the principle here " in the public interest" sorry Dr you don't know my Ass from my Elbow? come on, keep the industry sensible..