Originally Posted by
dr dre
That's funny because it's the US that threw in the arbitrary 1500 hr limit for airline F/Os (less for military pilots) without any real data backing up the 750/1500 hour rule as a positive for safety.
To say the "quality of training" allows the hour requirement to be reduced is questionable itself. To me the quality of training would only be demonstrated by military pilots achieving better standards when they are placed in the same environment as a civilian trained pilot. The most common arena where these two groups would interact is in the airline world with ex RAAF pilots joining an airline and then being assessed in the same system as civilian trained pilots. As far as I know there hasn't been any recent studies on the differences in outcomes between the two groups, and anecdotal experience and feedback from a wide variety of pilots who have flown with each group in an airline career indicates no observable evidence that military trained pilots are "better" in any respect than civilian trained ones.
So to me the 750/1500 difference is unproven (the whole 1500 hour rule is stupid to being with) and CASA just doesn't rely on arbitrary hour limits, there require competencies to be demonstrated in multiple areas in order to be granted ratings and privileges.
I do agree with you there, as that is one rule that does not make sense, especially since the accident that pushed it forward involved two pilots that were well above that threshold. However since that rule does benefit pilots in general, I'm not so against it. There is probably some political motivation for the military pilots getting a cut, to promote more pilots enlist to keep airforce pilot numbers up. The US does like to keep a large amount of military trained pilots in reserve duties so if there is a war they can pull on civilian pilots with previous military experience. Some of those that move to civilian jobs are probably still reservist pilots on the side. Australia does not really have an equivalent for the reserve airforce pilot or navy for that matter.
Just a point on 'quality' of training, I think is also a factor of 'consistency' of training. The Air Force is a known quantity with predictable standards. In some countries this is not compatible with airlines, in the US it is with little effort. I don't think it will be long before the large airline academies get the same concession based on training standards. It has been tested a few times lately, and will continue to be tested, as the airlines struggle more for adequately experienced pilots. I think the major hurdle is proving that the civilian academies will maintain standards, especially when aligned with an airline hungry for pilots, will they bend to just push them through? Where the air force you meet the standard or get the boot...
Prior to the current shortage of pilots there were particular paths you had to follow to get into certain airlines. The airlines could trust pilots with experience from these operators would be of a consistent standard that would make them easy to train in low hours. They would not entertain many applicants, even those with higher hours from outside these sources. As hours did not mean somebody had the required standard, and they didn't want to waste time finding out.