Old 31st Mar 2019, 07:32
  #91 (permalink)  
*Lancer*
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 807
This topic always generates a lot of strong opinions, although there is very little empirical research to support many of those opinions. The occasional incident where low experience was a factor does not demonstrate a systemic issue, as mishandling events occur to pilots of all experience levels.

For some local research on the subject:

The overall performance of cadets and low-hour pilots matched that of their direct entry and high- hour peers. All pilots were marked as proficient at the completion of the check flights, with the only differences between the groups being a function of how many exceeded the required standard.

The differences between the low and high-hour pilots in ‘meeting’ and ‘exceeding’ the standard across all metrics were variable within airlines and inconsistent across all three airlines. This suggests that the differences between the groups were not of a systemic nature that would highlight an area of concern for industry. While the metric normal landing showed a difference across two of the three airlines, none of the other required regulatory manoeuvres or technical metrics were significantly different in more than one airline. For non-technical metrics, both leadership and situation awareness were significantly different in all three airlines. Although this is understandable given the low experience of cadet and low-hour pilots, focused exposure to those metrics during initial airline training may reduce this difference as was seen in the data for cadets collected at the 5-year mark in one airline.

The evidence in this report indicates that the cadet pathway for low-hour pilots is a valid option for airlines. There was no evidence to indicate that cadets or low-hour pilots within the airlines studied were any less competent or proficient than their direct entry and high-hour peers.


https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/417179...-023_final.pdf
*Lancer* is offline