I went into the RHS of a medium jet in the UK after 1 year of no flying whatsoever (post 9/11), 10 4hr sim sessions prior to an LST and 166.55hrs in my log-book
total.
Frankly, I'm with the Americans on this one. I'm staggered the CAA mandate this kind of thing.
I heard an anecdotal story from one of our CSM's a few days ago about one of our new FO's, who is presumably in a similar position to that which I found myself in a few years ago, who expressed the sentiment to her, whilst the skipper was out of the flightdeck for a physiological break, that she'd rather have her (the CSM) on the flightdeck during that period in case anything went wrong.
The CSM was, of course a little startled, bearing in mind the last time she'd checked her logbook, the CAA hadn't certified her to fly a jet.
SIA added a SIN-JKT into the route network for the A345 because, as I understand it, pilots on this fleet would otherwise only get 1 TO
or 1 LDG
a month!
Valentino Rossi has spent 10000hrs on a bike in his life. Me? Maybe 2000hrs. Who is going to do a better job at work then? Arguably, even if he'd only spent 1hr on a bike, he'd do a better job than me, but the dependent variables that operating safely is commensurate upon include more than just annual hours. Which is presumably exactly what BA are trying to suggest, albeit poorly to date.
When did you last have a FD failure on your LPC/OPC? Did that make the detail significantly harder?
For me, there is no question
whatsoever in my own mind, that the systems sophistication and redundancy on a modern commercial flightdeck hides a multitude of sins. However, it still won't catch them all - that nirvana remains to be attained. Altimeter settings and fuel checks spring to mind.
For me, therefore, the argument that one has flown a modern commercial jet for 450hrs/year for 20 years doesn't really justify the conclusion that this is
best practise. And thats what I understand BA always endeavour to claim? Perhaps the aircraft capabilities are masking the pilots' deficiencies?
What would surely be far more revealing is to correlate pilot performance in major incidents with experience and currency levels. Even then, the study may not justify what I believe we all know is merely common-sense, namely, that the less time
you spend in the seat, the worse
your performance will generally be. (I'll ignore the argument that 900hrs a year is fatigue inducing etc etc.)
Whereupon, part-time pilots in the seat are always
de facto, going to give you a less safe operation. They may still be better than another crew, but they'll never be as good as that crew could be.
People draw the line in the sand at different places depending on the size of their ego and I personally don't think the argument BA is advancing is particularly unreasonable. Arbitrary maybe? Unreasonable, no?
Of course, the fact that it then appears inconsistent may only serve to illuminate other areas of BA's operation that are also less than
best practise inspite of what they claim.
My $0.02.
