Surely the rules for obtaining an ATPL should be based on a thorough risk assessment of how much and the types of experience necessary to make a pilot suitable to command an RPT flight? ALthough I can't personally vouch for the processes of CASA or ICAO, I will assume this to be the case for the sake of discussion.
Unfortunately, pilots' fraternity (do we have a sorority these days?
) insists on applying its own less structured methodology to determine whether or not someone has what it takes to be an airline Captain. hence we will see any number of different "magic figures" that a pilot needs to have in a log book before they are seen as having cut enough mustard. 1500 hours, 2000, 5000 ...... whatever it is, some people are just willing to assert that if you don't have the magic number, then you can't possible have what it takes.
What's your magic number? On which particular flight does a pilot depart completely unsuitable for command and then magically arrive at the destination with all the grand knowledge and experience worthy of an extra bar on the shoulder?
Unfortunately, none of these "magic numbers" are based on good science or solid statistical evidence. You might hear the cry - "more experience = less likely to make a critical error". Statistically, this is true in a very narrow sense. HF evidence shows that there is a very strong link between
handling errors and experience, but that judgement errors remain relatively constant over time.
So what's more important in a Captain? Presumably after several years in the right seat, passing checks every few months and flying half the sectors, an FO should have demonstrated that he/she is at least capable of handling the aircraft. If it is suspect for any reason, then a robust CAR 217 organisation should have identified the problem by the time a command is available. It comes to judgement then, and although our "gut" may tell us otherwise, judgement does not necessarily improve with more flight hours.
I don't offer these ideas as concrete evidence supporting a hypothesis, but merely as talking points that often go ignored when grand old pilots are discussing this aging question of "how low is the company going to go"?
Captains in my company will tell you on a given day:
1. That cadet FO is a legend.
2. That FO with 8000 hours is useless.
3. That guy needs to be watched like a hawk - cadet you see.
4. That FO should have a command tomorrow.
Similarly, FOs will tell you:
1. My Captain today is brand new - have to watch him a bit.
2. Thank God that Captain (with 15000 on type) is flying with so-and-so. Someone needs to keep him safe.
3. Thank God I'm flying with so-and-so; best Captain in the company.
Et cetera, ad nauseum. There are good pilots, there are bad pilots. Perhaps more specifically, there are people who execute command well, and others who are unsuitable for command. Within the confines of my company, I see very little evidence that suitability is correlated with flight hours.
Although I would love to tap away for hours on the subject, its probably time I went and found some kevlar.