How experienced must one be?

[SeenItAll]

There are a number of threads on PPRUNe (e.g., AF447, Ethiopian ex Beirut, etc.) that deal with the question of whether the pilots in question were adequately experienced -- either in terms of position or hours.

As to position, many posters express the view that all FO's are of questionable competency, and cannot be trusted to pilot alone without a captain's continual supervision. Others state that we should expect FO's to be fully competent at piloting on their own, and suggest that what really separates FO's from captains is "command" skills and not basic pilotage.

As to hours, some posters appear to believe that if the pilot is rated for a type, we should have no concerns. Others suggest that if a pilot (either a FO or a captain) has only a few hundred hours on a type, we should be very worried.

Are there any accepted general standards for competency -- in terms of position or hours? Or should we just accept that some individuals may be competent/incompetent regardless of their position (FO/Capt) or hours?

Is that enough of a windup?

[alf5071h]

SIA, you are probably asking the wrong question.
Even where a ‘required’ level of experience is defined (competency), there is no assurance that the skills and knowledge gained would be applied to a specific situation.
Most training is based on competency for a range of tasks – those anticipated in normal and non-normal operation according to the task expected to be encountered. This training needs to be associated with the skills to recognize situations and recall those skills and knowledge appropriate for those situations.
In the accidents quoted and many similar ones, the crew’s actions were most likely driven by the crew’s perception of the situation. If incorrect the initial actions may aggravate the situation; the aircraft did not ‘lose control’, the crew’s actions resulted in the manoeuver.
Perception (situation assessment) is therefore an essential skill, but exactly how this can be taught or checked as a competency is difficult to define as it depends on the context of each situation. The problem is that we are human.

Experience is a key feature; in general it does not depend on hours flown, more on the situations encountered and visualized. The most important aspect (skill) is to generate appropriate experiences in memory and associate them with specific situations or a range / class of situations.
Thus experience is partly about how individuals behave; so a general standard of competency would include how an individual behaves in a range of situations.

[SeenItAll]

I agree that it may be difficult to know in advance how competently a pilot will react to an abnormal situation (although presumably sim sessions are intended to elicit an estimate of this). What I am getting at is more as follows (and I admit that I am not a pilot or have had any other experience in this area).

As a SLF, I have always assumed that both occupants of the front seats have similar capability to fly the plane -- and I am not concerned when I learn that the FO is flying the leg that I am traveling. Further, I have not assumed that when the FO is the PF that the Captain is constantly correcting errors made by the FO. Indeed, I generally assumed that (a) errors by the PF are quite infrequent, and (b) it was nearly as likely that the FO would be correcting errors made by the Captain when the latter was the PF. This view is reinforced by my understanding that seniority is what is critical to becoming a captain, and that to be promoted, one needn't demonstrate that one's competence exceeds that of every FO now occupying a RHS, just that one's competence exceeds some minimum standard.

In contrast to this supposition, I see repeated comments on PPRUNE threads suggesting that many FOs are not to be trusted to perform even routine tasks with any great level of reliability. Further, some suggest that Captains generally have skills that are much greater than those of FOs and their supervision is both critical and nearly always required.

Given the criticality of seniority, this suggests that hours are viewed as a more important input than being able to demonstrate skills superior to all those who are not currently captains.

I am sure that something is amiss here. Is it my understanding that basic competence levels are likely similar? Or that current procedures for estimating capabilities (which seem generally to be linked to hours) really do separate the sheep from the goats?

I am not trying to be accusatory. Just interested in understanding who (Capt/FO) or what (experience hours vs. competence) is really is driving the "bus" up front. Thanks.

[alf5071h]

SIA, several points.
Re use of sim, the human performance theorists might disagree with you view; realism in a synthetic situations might not result in realistic behavior.

Yes both pilots can fly the aircraft; the difference is in operating;- assessing and handling situations, decision making, judgement, etc.

Many people would disagree with your depiction of error; I choose not to use the term, instead – variable performance (Hollnagel).
Depending on the situation, pilots will have variable performance, the more experienced should exhibit less variation (or significance) than the less experienced pilot. Cross checking / monitoring can detect if the level of performance matches the task. If not then both pilots have opportunity to correct and learn from such deviations, more likely the less experienced one.

Past theories of piloting / operating experience followed those of apprenticeship; the longer you flew the more opportunity to gain experience from the range of situations encountered. In modern aviation there is less opportunity to experience failure conditions - aircraft / systems are more reliable, but additionally, new pilots expect quicker advancement. Thus there are concerns that experience levels are reducing. However, this can be offset by appropriate use of automation, restricting crew tasks, or exposure to performance-challenging situations.

Many adverse posts in this forum suffer hindsight bias. The level of competence in the industry is generally very good – consider the everyday successes – the safest form of transport. There are variations worldwide, but these are being worked on.
Trust has to be earned as well as given; perhaps those who do not trust have not yet earned it; more likely they are not professional Captains.

Humans continually suffer variable performance, occasionally simultaneously. If these variations are not detected and corrected and an incident occurs, then perhaps due to the relative rarity of events the incident’s notability is falsely elevated. Accidents, more so, particularly if elevated by a sensation seeking media.
Consider the media hype about the recent cruise ship accident vs a major Asian aircraft accident. Both events probably involved variations in human performance, judgement, etc; both events involved a crew; something, somewhere in the chain of events enabled a multitude of variations to become significant.
I’m not sure how we might gain appropriate experience to prevent this variability – human nature is difficult to change, but aviation tries hard to maintain a high level safety; the most productive methods involve restricting the operating environment and precursors to events.

[Tee Emm]

Experience is a key feature; in general it does not depend on hours flown, more on the situations encountered and visualized.

Never a truer statement. Well put.

[Tee Emm]

The level of competence in the industry is generally very good – consider the everyday successes – the safest form of transport

The level of competence in automation may be good but certainly the level of competence in many pilots, if and when they are permitted to hand fly on instruments, is appalling. It is automation that makes flying the safest form of transport - not pure flying skill. Loss of control in IMC is directly linked to poor basic instrument flying ability.

[parabellum]

Given the criticality of seniority, this suggests that hours are viewed as a more important input than being able to demonstrate skills superior to all those who are not currently captains.



Not really SIA, when a pilot has sufficient hours and seniority to be considered for a command he likely to first undergo a Command Assessment, usually a few sectors with a training captain and a Line Orientated Flight Training simulator session. Suitability will also be considered, if successful with the assessment and considered suitable for promotion the pilot will now undergo a Command Course which he will have to pass. Hours and seniority on their own are rarely sufficient to obtain a command.