Bealzebub- I respect your views but you need to make it clear that you do have a vested interest in your argument due to your role in training which I believe is either Easyjet or CTC. It is not an unbiased opinion. All the hours argument that you put out in your post are a red herring, you know what we are talking about here, it is the real problem of super low experience crews operating together. With your inteligent articulate views please address the real problem rather than throwing out decoys.
OK. Let me make this clear. Completely transparent as you would say. I do not have a vested interest. I do not have the roles you describe, or ever had in the manner you describe them. The only bias to my opinion is from my own
experience, a word that is the prime focus of this hypothesis of yours. Yes I do know what you are talking about. It is the career block that you feel is placed in your way by low hour cadets, and is there a cats chance in hell that the public could be convinced that it is a problem that affects the public? The answer is obvious. No!
Is there a problem with
super low experience crews operating together.
I am not sure what you mean by "
Super low" since the
minimum levels of baseline experience set down for commanders is usually in the 3500 to 4000 hours range. Most airlines (through regulatory oversight) do not roster low experience in both seats at the same time, where both pilots are new to their roles irrespective of the hours they have. However, you have to accept that there has to come a point when this restriction no longer applies. Even if you won't accept it, the industry most certainly will, does, and has done for a long time.
If the public and the industry is concerned about safety (and they are and most certainly should be,) then look back through the accident statistics. Unfortunately, (and let me remind you of your term
red herring) a very long history of such statistics is going reveal that lack of overall "experience" was anything but a contributory factor in almost all of them. On the other hand, complacency, poor training, and poor application of training, is depressingly repeated time and time again! One thing that is glaringly obvious is that "experience" as a stand alone item simply isn't addressing the problem.
I have seen quite a few "experienced" pilots over the years who have failed to maintain an acceptable standard. Unfortunately, nearly all of these examples were individuals from what might be termed "unstructured" backgrounds. Remedial training either resolves the problem or that individuals employment is terminated. The industry has moved markedly towards better application of relevant, seamless and more integrated basic and continuation training.
Panda, I would suggest to you that your narrow focus is self serving. You simply do not want to step back and see the wider picture. If you put aside your prejudice and look at that wider picture you will see that what you want to project as a problem simply isn't a problem at all. Better training, structure and integration are the seeds of better safety. Quantitative experience might well help in some cases when everything else hasn't, however I can send you box loads of accident reports that simply demonstrate time and time again that in isolation it simply isn't an acceptable substitute for better structure and training.
Has that made it clear? Has that addressed the
real problem? Is it all still a red herring? Your initial conjectures were completely erroneous. I am afraid that doesn't provide much support for your follow on conjectures.