Originally Posted by
meleagertoo
Something that our industry might take as pause for thought is that if such a large percentage of Pakistani pilots have not taken/passed the required training then what does that say about the usefulness or essential nature of that training?
40% of a nation's pilots is a statistically significant number but despite Pakinstans poor accident record by Western standards I wonder if the rate is anywhere near as high as might be expected given that figure.
On the acceptance of the figure of 40% how then is the accident rate so low given that almost half their pilots are not properly vetted?
Could it be that the vast scope and depth of Western training actually doesn't make all that much difference? That given time anyone with a modicum of ability and either a sharp pencil or a large wallet will get familiar enough to make a decent fist of it? I have come across one ot two pilots in Eu who conform to that description who have seemed quite reasonable pilots, except in pressurised circumstances.
That's an interesting posit. Of course it applies to other fields and professions as well.
The obvious opposing argument is that having a system of background information and theory with the associated hoops to jump through builds a feeling of exclusiveness and accomplishment. This status and the perceived time investment modifies the individuals behaviour towards conservatism because it's an achievement you don't easily throw away. The apparent low difference in accident rates needs proper statistical analysis but I think there's some dilution due to the size of the relative markets, globalised aviation standards and the actual extent of "fake" (how fake - a little or a lot?) credentials muddies the waters somewhat.