No relation between safety and P2F. Really ?
Some people have stated here that there is no relation between aircraft safety and P2F. That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have read here.
Imagine this:
Air Traffic Control school in South London is accepting applications. If you pass the medical exam and all the course exams, (and pay 150,000 pounds), you be provided with an Air traffic Control Licence and be guaranteed a job at London Approach Control Center. No interview, psychological or aptitude exams required. For only 100,000 Pounds, you can also get a job in Newcastle tower.
The Royal Navy is accepting applications for it future F-35 pilots. No exams, no aptitude tests, no contests. Just a physical and you pass all the courses The cost is 1.5 million pounds.
Jokes put aside, look at the last three accidents that LionAir from Indonesia had. The last two had low time P2F pilots at the controls. A bounced landing with tail strike and other damage, the other crashed in the ocean after proceeding beyond the MAP when they were not visual. The third to last, a runway overrun, had the PIC at the controls but a 750 hour P2F SIC in the right seat.
The recent Air Asia accident? That French pilot was hired with no prior commercial flying experience. It was his first flying job. Why does an Indonesian airline put a zero experience 40+ year old pilot at the controls of an Airbus 320 if its not P2F? Were there no inexperienced Indonesians to put there in his place?
Would any of these accidents have occurred with two experienced pilots at the controls ? There is a direct relation between P2F and accidents, its just that it has so far been covered up.
Some will bring up the AF447, which was not P2F but still involved a 250 hour pilot that was hired and put in the right seat of an Airbus 320, later upgraded to the A330.
It is not by accident that 2 pilots are required in the flight deck. There is always an experienced captain who is ultimately responsible for the aircraft but his second in command is not just there to fulfill a regulatory requirement. He is there to be a second pair of eyes, a second pair of ears, and especially a second brain, because the experienced Captain can make a mistake, he can misinterpret a clearance, he can be stressed or under duress, or have a sick child at home. What kind of backup can a 250 hour P2F SIC provide such a captain when he is in error ? Will he even dare ? Will the captain listen to him, considering his known lack of experience. My employer hires new pilots that have a minimum of 4000 hours. When my brand new SIC tells me something I listen, because he is not a new pilot, he is just new in my company. He had thousands of hours of experience flying other aircraft before joining me in the flight deck of my Airbus 330, or B-737 or whatever I was flying. I am not afraid of leaving this new pilot alone in the flight deck to go to the washroom. I can leave him at the controls while we do any kind of takeoff and approaches (except Low Vis Take off and CAT II and III because of regulations).
Who think will eventually put a stop to this ? The insurance companies. When they finally understand what is happening, how much it is costing them, and begin to specify what kind of pilots they will require in the aircraft they insure. They have done it in the past to certain companies, they will do it again when P2F is finally fingered as the culprit in a number of expensive claims. I am doing my share and hope some insurers read this and go back and look at what they have been spending and why.
Last edited by Gilles Hudicourt; 28th Jan 2015 at 19:30.