At Last - A Voice of Reason

[Jabiman]

Airmanship

FB,
My world is not simplistic but in my experience reducing an argument to its lowest common denominators is the most effective way to dissect a complicated problem (which is something that mathematicians also do). Your counter facts were mostly irrelevant to the point I was trying to make though one does require some further discussion.

FACT: Pilots entering through the cadet scheme may have a better introduction into airline flying than pilots with more hours which were gained in an activity that is irrelevant to the airline environment.

WRONG
Not only is this incorrect but it goes to the heart of the argument of those that are trying to undermine the industry and reminds me Joseph Goebbels who famously said “A lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth.”
The reason it is wrong is because it comes down to airmanship, the unteachable quality which can ONLY be learned through experience and cannot be taught. Further more, a pilot going through the GA route is much more likely to be dedicated to the career and not just treating it as a job. Those who come through the short cadet scheme are much less likely to be doing it through a passion and love of flying and therefore are less likely to ever learn true airmanship. The reason this quality is important is because if anything goes wrong and a life and death situation develops and experience and judgement needs to come to the fore, then pilots with airmanship qualities are the much more likely to save the situation.
I must stress that this is only a solution for those nations that have a strong GA industry of which Australia certainly is one, so why go the route of cadetships which are used by places which have little other alternative. On reflection though, I can see that the 1500 hour rule has little chance of being introduced due to these vested special interest groups. So I have thought of another effective alternative which requires no legislative changes and would be a certain vote winner for any government which introduces it.
When I get into a taxi, I can question the driver, examine his licence, ensure he knows the route, etc and I have the option of taking another if I am unsatisfied. But when I get onto a airplane there is no such opportunity and my loved ones and I are consigned to a lottery which is increasingly becoming stacked against us. Yet when I booked the flight, I was able to choose where I sat, what entertainment I have, which meals I eat….so why not the experience of the pilot?
What if it was a requirement that when booking a flight, the airline provide the experience rating of the rostered pilots. This does not have to be exact but just a rough idea:
Does the FO have greater or less than 1500 hours.
Does the captain have greater or less than 5000 hours.
In this way, the travelling public has the right to decide and airlines will actually gain a competitive advantage by employing experienced pilots.
A simple but effective way to reverse the race to the bottom me thinks.