Low, Low Time Commands,

[Telstar]

Low, Low Time Commands,

I would be interested to hear from Aviation Professionals (No Spotters, no FS 2004 Captains please) about your thoughts on Very very low time Pilots being promoted as Captains. I know of an individual who instructed on light aircraft for a few years and had about 1000hrs TT. He then decided to pay for a rating and joined a rapidly expanding carrier in Eastern Europe.

After a 1000 hrs on a medium Jet (think 737/A320/757/Fokker100) he was promoted to Captain. I was quite shocked by this. 1000hrs on a jet and 1000hrs on light aircraft which one could argue do not really count towards the experience needed to make a Captain.

All the old guys, especially the Americans,and Pilots from legacy airlines on these forums, who have long long waits to command due to the well worn career path of working your way up the chain from the lightest aircraft, turbo prop, light Jet etc, those Pilots who worked their way up from the bottom of long seniority lists are appalled by relatively Low time Pilots being upgraded to the LHS. Are they right, does an F/O have to sit in the RHS for 20 years before a command? Or are they just being arrogant and assuming like we all do, that our airline does it right and better then everyone else? Are Pilots with 1000Hrs Jet 2000Hrs TT capable and safe enough to be a Captain? An airforce Pilot can often fly a Single Seat Fighter with very low TT, is that different?

In Europe it has been my experience that the likes of Easyjet and Ryanair to name but two have upgraded F/Os with 3000 Hrs TT which usually includes a minimum of 2500hrs on a JAR25 aircraft. Does the extra 2000 hrs make a difference?

Thanks!

[airborne_artist]

I'd be very surprised if more than five years RHS was any benefit to a future captain. Structured selection and training should be far more usefull.

[AtoBsafely]

The military often promote "low-time" pilots to commands. As a-a says, it just takes structured selection and thorough training. Those low-time commanders are very closely supervised.
Seniority systems at large carriers usually keep guys in the RHS for longer, and in general an 8000 hr pilot will make a better captain than a 4000 hr pilot. That doesn't mean a captain with 4000 hrs (or 2000 hrs) is an accident waiting to happen, but he is more likely to make a mistake. Small mistakes just cost money, and hopefully those are the only ones that happen. A lot of being "safe enough" is the judgement and decision-making that is based on experience, but also training and personality.
A low-cost (min training/supervision/operational support) airline staffed with 4000 hr captains and 2000 hr FOs IS an accident waiting to happen, because the odds are stacked against safe flying. It is too bad that the average Joe buying a ticket can't see that.
Just my opinion.

[Re-entry]

Are Pilots with 1000Hrs Jet 2000Hrs TT capable and safe enough to be a Captain?
Yes. If they are trained well. The simple notion that sitting in a seat for a certain amount of time qualifies someone as a captain is nonsense. Experience counts, but is not the defining factor. Knowledge, skills and attitude are the defining factors, and can be trained.

[Telstar]

Thank you very much for those answers.

A low-cost (min training/supervision/operational support) airline staffed with 4000 hr captains and 2000 hr FOs IS an accident waiting to happen, because the odds are stacked against safe flying.

I think this promotion was maybe more driven by the fact they due to the non "western" salaries they may have been stuck for Capts. and this, more then ability, was the driving force behind the upgrade.

A low-cost (min training/supervision/operational support) airline staffed with 4000 hr captains and 2000 hr FOs IS an accident waiting to happen

I'm not sure I would agree with that, if you are talking of the likes of Easy and Ryanair, I work for one of the above. I flew with a recently upgraded Capt. and I was only about 400TT. at that time.

[fireflybob]

Aircraft accidents are caused by a whole series of events and situations conspiring together - like the model of the holes in the cheese lining up to create the accident.

I see low experience as one of the holes in the cheese. Yes, I agree, experience is not everything especially if the selection and training is good BUT it IS a significant factor when it comes to stacking the odds of having an accident.

Good judgement (often) comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgement! If you have spent a significant time in the RHS seat you have probably seen one or two weak judgements which can teach you how to stay out of trouble!

Would you want your brain surgeon to be operating on you immediately after basic training with no supervision?

[Mr R Sole]

Would a company make a command assessment easier for someone with lower experience? I doubt it and in some cases the reverse may apply!

Any Chief Pilot who doesn't want sleepless nights is not going to endorse a promotion from right to left if there was the slightest doubt that the person concerned was not up to the task!

[Cornish Jack]

No idea what the answer to this would be, but ...
Excluding GA, what percentage of aircraft fatal accidents were crewed by (say) 10,000 plus hour captains as distinct from those with less than 10,000. Probably irrelevant but ... lies, damned lies and statistics.:hmm:

[A37575]

FireflyBob like the model of the holes in the cheese lining up to create the accident.


I may have missed the joke but what on earth has holes in a piece of cheese got to do with competent pilots getting commands?

Get real. During WW2, pilots were getting commands on heavy four-engine bombers at 600 hours or less total time. And they were a damned more difficult to land than a modern jet airliner. RAF pilots were involved in night flying raw data with one ADI, a DG and a minimum of other flight instruments. More often than not they hand flew into thunderstorms, were shot at and there was no pressurisation. So lets not discuss 5000 hours as a safe minimum as first officer before a command comes your way. Seniority rules the roost in many airlines, and there is a dog in the manger tendency by some long serving pilots to say I did my time before the mast - now it's your turn, matey..:*

[fireflybob]

A37575, you may be right but the point I was making is that many different factors can conspire together to create an aircraft accident.

I suggest that the combined experience of the crew is one of those factors.

Yes, I have seen many low hour pilots who are perfectly competent as a result of selection and training.

[barit1]

... During WW2, pilots were getting commands on heavy four-engine bombers at 600 hours or less total time. And they were a damned more difficult to land than a modern jet airliner...

...Yes, I have seen many low hour pilots who are perfectly competent as a result of selection and training.

Yes, the "washout" rate among pilot trainees was quite high, but it resulted in an effective fighting force. Kudos to the Training Command! :ok:

[Loose rivets]

I'd be very surprised if more than five years RHS was any benefit to a future captain. Structured selection and training should be far more usefull.

And

Knowledge, skills and attitude are the defining factors, and can be trained.

It's just not enough.

Our new 1-11 fleet wanted 8,000 left and 4,600 right. That soon came down to fill requirements however. But it would take about 7 to 10 years from scratch to clamber into the LHS of a Viscount or 1-11 for example, if you were non-military.

In this time the crews would have certainly been thrashed in thunderstorms...and I mean really thrashed, and probably have had several significant emergencies. Loss of our very basic systems was almost routine. To be trained with modern techniques is fine, it leaves a pilot with good operating procedures and skills, but that pilot is totally unproven with regard to the thankfully rare but extraordinary occurrence.

There are too many examples to mention, but suddenly finding that you can see nothing whatsoever -- just before touchdown, is something that happens in the real world. It takes skills that I don't believe can be taught in the sim alone. Sure, the wave-off procedures can, but the psychological stresses can't...they have to be experienced. Also, the decision wether or not to rotate the aircraft very near to the concrete is a vital piece of decision making, I believe that experiences like that have to be lived in the real world.

I have had 3 total (by that I mean all of them) attitude instrument losses, two total electrics failures -- yes, it was the same airplane that was eventually lost because of this fault -- several engine failures, massive fuel leaks... All this served to test me to a point where I was a known entity. I had a data-base of experience to help me pull something out of the bag, but what is more important, I knew that I could perform under those conditions. I was not special, but just had some years of experience to fall back on.

I don't draw too many conclusions from the ‘Atlantic glider' but, there is no doubt that that guy had some very well honed basic skills tucked away for that rainy day.

[StbdD]

A37575

Assuming you are serious regarding the meaning of the swiss cheese model to aviation safety I recommend a google using "aviation safety" and "swiss cheese model" as your search terms. It's a rather standard model in CRM training. When the holes in a stack of cheese slices line up that represents a mishap. Rotate any of the slices so the holes don't line up and the mishap is prevented.

Get real. During WW2, pilots were getting commands on heavy four-engine bombers at 600 hours or less total time.

Yes, and hull/personnel losses in operational training mishaps were often as high or higher than losses due to enemy action. The system rolled the dice on those lads and like it or not, the system could make good the losses because the net effect was winning the war.

That analogy holds true today. Military and civilian aircrew are apples and oranges as regards the effects of a mishap. Military mishaps generally kill military personnel and cause a hull loss to a system that passes the cost to the taxpayer. Civil mishaps generally kill lots of paying passengers and cause hull losses that have driven more than one airline out of business.

Economics and insurance companies therefore play an important part in determining the "minimum safe hours for upgrade" in civil aviation. Flight experience is quantifiable. It’s called hours. The more the better. Ask an insurer.

Not even seniority will trump that bottom line.

[space pig]

" I had a data-base of experience to help me pull something out of the bag, but what is more important, I knew that I could perform under those conditions. I was not special, but just had some years of experience to fall back on."

Experience cannot be teached, like Loose Rivets says, it is going to help you pull you through difficult situations, it gives you a certain confidence and calm as you "have seen this before" and know what will happen next.
Having had more then a few interesting events myself, the more that has happened, the less it made my heart beat faster.

Having said that, when I was doing a assesment of prospective captains, I wasn't counting the hours. Not only that hours total doesn't always match experience(long haul 12 landings per year versus shorthaul 4 flights a day), but character, maturity, attitude and knowledge and CRM is what counts. The total time was very often only the trigger to have a look at the person to see if he or she was ready.

[Centaurus]

The following link to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau report on the captains incapacitation in flight in a B767 makes sober reading. Fortunately the first officer was highly experienced and not a 300 hour second in command.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2005/AAIR/aair200503921.aspx

[Chrome]

All that I got from that incident was that highly experienced pilots are risks to a safe flight. Maybe all those years of flying provide aviation experience but nothing on stress management and maintaining good health.

There is nothing to say a low hour FO won't be able to land an aircraft safely alone.

[Rananim]

Experience and training is all a pilot has.Superior training can offset a shortfall in experience but only to a certain extent.Training determines skill level and theoretical knowledge,both important ingredients in a pilot's make-up.However,you cant train cognitive judgement and airmanship.This only comes with experience.
Can a pilot with 1000 hours jet fly as a 737 skipper?Even if that pilot was mature beyond his years and had received excellent training then he would still be unsuitable for jet command in my opinion.I know such pilots do exist but todays aircraft are so reliable and automated that the dangers of premature promotion dont reveal themselves.

[411A]

Rananim, you have hit the nail squarely on the head.
I personally was very lucky to have had a heavy jet command (B707) at age 29 with minimal experience in the RHS of same (80 hours) but on the other hand had plenty of time in other types...DC-6's, Constellation, Electra etc.

Prior experience means a LOT, in my estimation.

[DC-Mainliner]

Yes. If they are trained well. The simple notion that sitting in a seat for a certain amount of time qualifies someone as a captain is nonsense. Experience counts, but is not the defining factor. Knowledge, skills and attitude are the defining factors, and can be trained.

I respectfully disagree.

The aviation industry is far too complex these days and has become too much of an important part of the world infrastructure for us to marginalize it now with low safety standards

Training is clearly important, but training is also two dimentional. Training is necessary, but it's not real. Reality is sitting in the seat and learning how training models apply to real world situations when, in reality, 90 percent of what we negotiate in the day to day world is grey area decisions versus the black and white training concepts.

Military flying is so, so very structured compared to civilian opserations. 1500 hours and a heavy command is a reality in a structured, multi aircraft mission where the old timers really make the judgement calls flying along side the newbies - but in another aircraft. And the military mishap stats do not reflect what we must demand of passenger operations.

So, a 2000 hour pilot flying a Boeing or an Airbus as a Captain is probably - well, it is really, really pushing it in my opinion to the point of recklessness on the part of the carrier. A 4000 hour pilot might be OK, yet it would depend heavily on their learned judgement, maturity and attention to detail as it related to their airmanship - but I'd rather have a 4000 pilot who flew 600 hours a year so they had a good six years of overall industry exposure before I became his victim in the back of the bus!! ;)

[low n' slow]

I completely agree with the fact that experience cannot be taught. We can indeed learn lessons from accident reports and so on, but real experience still cannot be taught. Its the many little things that make up the big picture and most of those little things cannot be taught. Training is there to give us a picture and an aiming point towards which we should strive, but how often does everything go according to the book? Seriously? There's allways something on every flight that is if only by little, slightly off. How to handle these things smoothely and safely is what experience teaches us. It gives us a working knowledge about things in our surroundings whilst training in most cases only gives us a theoretical picture and as such, is very rigid and unflexible.
I'm NOT talking about flexing rules, but as I said, nobody can do a perfect flight and because of the fact tha everone of us makes mistakes, experience is required to handle those small slips and misses in a safe manner. There's no training for this and this I realize after 270 hours in commercial ops. I've seen my own experience level rise considerably in the past 6 months and consider myself a safer pilot now than 6 months ago. Why this progression should end I don't know and I hope it doesn't. Hence, it should also apply to comomanders and their experience levels. But here comes the big BUT:
Hours need not be an indication of experience level. Depending on the environment in which these hours were achieved, the experience can be good or bad. Rather than experience to be summed up in hours, I would hint towards the number of landings. I believe the highest percentage of accidents occur during the approach phase of a flight and thus appears to be the most critical phase in which we need to focus all our knowledge, CRM skills and so on. A high number of successful landings I would argue, indicate a high level of experience.
Regards/ LnS

[alf5071h]

I completely agree with the fact that experience cannot be taught. We can indeed learn lessons from accident reports and so on, but real experience still cannot be taught.The all encompassing statement is subsequently divided into real and other experience (my interpretation). The question ‘what is real experience’ remains unanswered, but by implication, suggest that only this type of experience matters.
I do not hold the same view; I would promote “those little things” that make up the big picture to a higher level of importance and suggest that they and the techniques for gaining knowledge from them (experience) can be taught.

I suspect that ‘real’ experience’ is more applicable in extreme or infrequently encountered situations where knowledge is gained through error or error detection/correction, i.e. in retrospect (and personal). However, experience can be gained in everyday routine operations both pro and retrospectively through personal application with good planning, thinking ahead, self briefing/debriefing, self criticism, and self discipline.
‘Training’ is a process where knowledge is gained, thus experience “those little things” can be trained.

Similarly the techniques of gaining and maintaining situation awareness through scanning, knowing what is important in given situation and where to find it, the content of a briefing/debrief, how to learn (embedded knowledge in memory), comprise just a few of the techniques that enable greater experience.
Many of the tasks and techniques above are founded on basic training, but they have to be continuously developed. Just because modern aviation does not have so many opportunities for highly demanding ‘real experience’ situations does not mean that experience cannot be gained / trained.

I do not agree that the number of successful landings is a good indicator of experience. Landings are similar to flight time, they only indicate the number of opportunities to gain experience, and not that anything has been learnt.
Learning (gaining experience) is the personal application to determine what was good, not so good, or what was interesting about a flight. More often it is the interesting aspects that constitute real experience – something that was not considered or not known (so find out), and thus can be improved and made available for use in future situations.
Thus low flight time does not prohibit achieving a command, but it would be unlikely that many pilots could achieve the required minimum standard without exceptional dedication or training assistance. For the rest of us, we can only seek to improve on the experience we have.

[JW411]

I think it is quite difficult to describe "experience". I got my first command on 4-engined aircraft when I had 1500 hours total time. I was in the Royal Air Force and was therefore very well trained and also very well supervised. I had been in the right seat for about 3 years and had certainly gained a hell of a lot of "experience" having spent a lot of time flying low level at night and having been struck by lightning more time than I had had hot dinners.

When my time for command came, I was quietly confident.

Within the next 500 hours I had become a training captain. I continued to train pilots on three and four engined aeroplanes until I retired after another 40 years.

I am still teaching and examining in the simulator and I am constantly impressed with the standards shown by the young pilots coming up the ladder nowadays.

Aircraft and equipment is so much better nowadays and I don't see why a well-trained young man in 2006 should not move to the left seat with the same sort of experience that I had.