This thread suffers from a lot of posters having a) very narrow field of view b) assumption that everything outside their FOV is exactly the same as that within it.
Bla Bla Bla, what Philc1983 was referring to is the fact that some CAAs do require at least 500 hrs in RHS of multi-pilot aeroplane for full ATPL and with them 10 000 hrs in seminole/aztec/seneca/DA42 won't thaw your fATPL. Guys with 500 hrs in RHS of SP Citations need not apply also.
Great post Juno78, something like that was written by BP Davies in "Handling the big jets".
Originally Posted by BP Davies
Personal enthusiasm for the job is beyond value because it is built-in productive force, and those to have it do not have to be pushed into practice and search for knowledge.
Preface to second edition has very good and not much flattering explanation why we need SOPs that still rings true today, decades after it was written.
There are part of the world were general aviation is non-existent but airlines still have to fill in the cockpit seats so while "you-have-to-have-so-many-hours-before-flying-that-jet" rule can be enforced in USA/CAN/AUS, the rest of the world has occasionally to do with less than 200hrs pilots. Seemingly they're doing all right.
if Airbus and my company tell me explicitly that the FDs, AP and A/THR should be on all the time, then that's what I'll do - I'll save the manual raw data heroism for the sim.
Do they perchance mention that reason for that is that automatics is infallible? Manual raw data flying is absolutely not a heroism but a part of the job any airline pilot has to be proficient in. If you can maintain your raw data/ manual skills by practicing in sim only, twice a year, good for you. But if you make mess of your R/D on sim check that qualifies as marginal standard and then, out of fear that you'll mess up in real life, cover your nether regions with SOP, you shouldn't be in that seat.
And I repeat my suggestion that knowing your stuff about flying a light twin piston VFR in marginal conditions really doesn't have a massive bearing on one's ability to operate a heavy jet.
Massive - not, though some skills required to fly light piston are exactly the same needed to fly (mind you: I wrote "fly" and not "operate") the big jet. Neither people who cut their teeth on light twins do not automatically make good airline pilots nor people who never flew them are certain to be the lousy ones.
My point is that whoever is in that R.H.S has been determined (probably by a 50 year old Chief Pilot who is part of the old-timers club ) that he/she is the best person for the job and has successfully met all criteria during the recruitment stages AND Type Rating. 250hour or 2500 hours I have always had confidence in the cadet and the Chief Pilot's decision to put them there.
This calls fore some additional qualifiers. Pilots chosen are not "best" but rather "best available at the time" and "consent to terms and conditions offered". Whether this "best" can occasionally actually be "not good enough" - your guess is as good as mine.
Flying is not rocket science and most people with half a brain can do it well, but experience does and always will count.
People with half a brain can do it well on a sunny day when everything is working. Failures on stormy night require above average cognitive abilities. Experience that counts the most is other pilots' experience you've learned something from.
Do you really want to be a pilot?
Well I have nurtured an ambition of becoming SLMG pilot for a quite long while. Sadly, my current career is not lucrative enough to make it come true. But, to paraphrase Paulo Coelho, if I really desire it, the market forces will conspire in helping me to achieve it.