raven11
What does my continuing to train have to do with my belief in the premise that hiring experienced pilots is better than hiring candidates with no experience?
Well, quite a lot I think. If you have a passionate belief in something, as you clearly do, then it’s incongruous to continue to take part in practices that are in direct conflict with that belief. You pleaded with me earlier when you said:
For goodness sake STP, our management agrees with you. What does that tell you?
By continuing to train in a system that is patently in conflict with your basic premise in this discussion, i.e. that hiring experienced pilots is better than hiring candidates with no experience, then it could be construed by some that the message that you are sending is that
you agree with them. Something you so openly and passionately disagree with and yet seem content to perpetuate does smack of hypocrisy I’m afraid.
In light of my disagreeing with the fuel hedging policy, does my continuing to train make me a hypocrite?
With all due respect, you make no contribution to fuel hedging policy so I’m not quite sure why you raised that as an example of your being a hypocrite or not as it’s a non sequitur.
One has nothing to do with the other, so try to remain focused on my arguements. [sic]
With all due respect, again, I’m trying my very best to find arguments among your emotive statements. By saying, "this is what I believe therefore I’m right and you're wrong", isn't exactly an argument to my mind. That others on this forum, or in the worldwide pilot body as a whole, might agree with you, doesn’t mean that you’re either right or wrong - you simply subscribe to a consensus view. There was a time when most people thought the Earth was flat or that the Sun and planets orbited the Earth. There was a time when physicians thought that blood letting was a cure all. Science and progress have debunked all of those consensus opinions.
In your post #285 you said it would be your last comment on this issue, but it wasn’t.
No, I actually said it was probably my final comment. I was forced to respond to an allegation of impropriety by 2 academic authors of a report commissioned by the ATSB.
Then in post #289 you said it would be your final word.....but then that wasn’t.
Not entirely accurate. I started the last paragraph with the word ‘finally’ as people often do when they make their final statement in a post.
For goodness sake, the most famous pilot in the world disagrees with you.
The most famous pilot in the world? Is that a fact or simply your opinion? Chesley Sullenberger, like so many pilots before him, has had fame thrust upon him for the right reasons. His feat of airmanship was nothing short of exceptional and he was rightly recognised by the world’s press and his fellow pilots. I'm not sure how many pilots would have had the presence of mind in a dire situation to think as quickly as he did and I'll forever hold him in the highest possible esteem, just as I do our own MW and DH.
Here is another quote from Sullenberger:
... There’s simply no substitute for experience in terms of aviation safety."
STP, just for you, let me repeat that last line....
"There’s simply no substitute for experience in terms of aviation safety.”
And my argument is that experience doesn’t automatically equate to competence. There is probably a link but it's by no means unequivocal. As quoted from the ATSB report:
The results indicate that while there are differences in performance between the various groups, the performance of the cadets and low-hour pilots against their direct entry and more experienced brethren is remarkably similar.
Safety message
The evidence in this report indicates that the cadet pathway for low-hour pilots is a valid option for airlines. There was no evidence to indicate that cadets or low-hour pilots within the airlines studied were any less competent or proficient than their direct entry and high-hour peers.
I'm not making this up. As I’ve tried to illustrate throughout this thread, all of the accidents I quoted involved ‘experienced’ pilots. These actual, factual examples really happened; they are not simply my belief that I’m right because that’s what I feel. If you can refute these facts then please be my guest. Our difference in this discussion is that I’m stating facts and you’re stating beliefs based on your opinion. You have every right to your opinion, and I respect that, but please don’t lecture me like I’m a child when I choose to take a different position.
I would counter Sullenberger’s statement by saying there is simply no substitute for training, motivation, competence and continued application of all connected with aviation safety. Additionally, Sullenberger was saying that there is no substitute for airlines paying an appropriate salary to attract experience and, at that point he blurred the line between safety and industrial issues (and I think you are too).
If you’ve reached this far without popping a blood vessel, well done. Let me restate my position once and for all. I do not believe that ‘experience’ (hours),
in and of themselves, are a metric by which we should assume a level of competence. I am not an advocate of MPL type pilot training. I do not believe that 'experience' makes pilots immune from making errors.
This will definitely be my final public post on this thread as our discussion is clearly of no interest to others. If you’d like to continue privately then you know my PM address.
STP