Originally Posted by
Ixixly
No offence, but there was a reason why the Buffalo crash in the US made them take stock on experience levels for crews. A lot of Pilots might be fine at 160TT but honestly, at that point you're still a very unknown quantity and I think the industry has been riding on past experienced crew for far too long and hoping for the best.
In relation to Universities and what they're telling students, we recently had one posting on here about being told to go do a "Jet Orientation Course" and MCC with about 200hrs TT. I personally did a single semester at a Uni about 12years ago when they were still relatively new and it was awful, lots of talk about Qantas Cadetships which never came about in any meaningful fashion and plenty of courses that were completely irrelevant to Aviation let alone being a Pilot along with people involved who really had no idea, seems like not a lot has changed tbh.
No offence taken at all. Regarding the Buffalo incident, the Captain had 3,400hrs and the FO had 2,300hrs. They both exceeded the 1,500hr rule that was allegedly brought in to stop a reoccurrence, in other words as far as experience goes there is nothing about these new rules today that would have stopped those two pilots sitting together in the same cockpit doing the same thing.
Beyond the first few hundred hours it is mainly raw skill and quality of training that dictate the quality of the pilot. You know as well as I do that there are 500hr FOs out there performing better than some 2,000hr FOs.
Again referring back to the Colgan/Buffalo incident, the real question is how a fully qualified crew managed to end up in such a situation. What about training and checking? It sounds like that failed. I did not hear of protests and lobbying to review training and checking procedures though, this would have made far more sense as it was ultimately the reason that plane crashed.