Originally Posted by
PiggyBack
The thing is that however good the legendary pilots of yesteryear it is far safer now than in the past. I think there is a lot of selective memory and golden age fallacy going on.
I am not going to rehash the problems with MCAS but this was clearly behaviour of a system in the event of a single fault with a probability of a catastrophic outcome that was not small. You can argue that in the past the excellance of pilots meant that they would on average have handled it better, but it is irrelevant, it would still have a significant chance of causing a crash and it would still be considered an unacceptable design that must be rectified.
And if you look at the legendary
crashes of yesteryear, quite a number were caused by flightdeck negligence. Need I recite them?
Originally Posted by
sky9
OK just an old fart but:
In the 1970's the company I joined demanded 2000 to sit in the right hand seat of a 737 (...).
Currently how many hours to sit in the right seat (the Ethiopean F/O Ahmed Nur Mohammod Nur, 25 had 361 hrs) [...].
But if the '70s F/O had spent 1,000 hrs teaching amateurs like me to fly single-engine VFR and the Ethiopean F/O had gained 150 hours as part of training at a flight academy for airline pilots, which of these sums is the better preparation for the job?
I've heard there are today 200-hr pilots out there flying nuclear-armed aircraft. If true, what does that mean?