Should Average Pilot Experience Levels Of Each Airline Be Public?

[kungfu panda]

I'm not trying to argue the benefit of experience or not but the first issue the media was interested in after both the Asiana accident and the Malaysian disappearance was the experience level of the crews.

It seems to me that Pilot experience is of public interest and to maintain transparency in the industry would it not be reasonable for an experience league table to exist for use by the media?

[captplaystation]

I can foresee a couple of companies that wouldn't be too keen to run with that idea.

[Aerofoil]

I think it would make for interesting reading!

Also i'm with Captplaystation above...and i don't think anyone would be suprised as to which airlines those turn out to be! :}

[despegue]

Hours really say nothing.
It is the amount of approaches that count, as well as the operational environment.

[kungfu panda]

I accept that view despegue but that is a different argument the first thing CNN and the BBC want to know is......Hours

[The African Dude]

And why is that? So they can feed speculation on even root cause before the facts are known?

[jumbojet]

Desp.

I accept the approach & environment issue but hours do bring an increasing awareness when things are beginning to go awry! Hours help you spot a problem before it happens, hopefully!! Hours also tend to bring a maturity, not easy for us!!!!

[Uplinker]

I think this is an interesting idea - maybe using a total time/landings score.

That way the public *might* be dissuaded against going for the cheapest ticket price, which, let's face it, is unsustainable.

[fulminn]

I guess is remarkable to Point out that in some airlines the first officer duty is to raise the Landing gear up while in some other less "well sighted" in Just 1-2 years of operations you do as pf plenty of cirlcing and tought approach environment..Just a guess. ..

[Bealzebub]

They are nearly always published as part of an accident report.

I am not sure why it would it would be particularly helpful?

I recall replying to somebody a while ago about experience levels not necessarily having a correlation to accidents. That reply is reproduced here.

AA331 Boeing 737. Capt. 22 years experience including 2700 hours on type. First officer 10 years experience and 5000 hours on type.

AA587 A300. Capt. 8050 hours including 1723 on type. First officer 4400 hours including 1835 on type.

AA1420 MD82. Capt. 10234 hours including 5518 hours on type. First officer 4292 hours including 182 hours on type.

AA965 Boeing 757. Capt.13000 hours including 2260 hours on type. First officer 5800 hours including 2286 on type.

AA1572 MD83. Capt. 8000 hours including 4230 on type. First officer 5100 hours including 2281 on type.

In just 5 major accidents involving perfectly serviceable airplanes since 1995, resulting in 435 fatalities and a further 110 injuries, you have "experienced" and often very experienced crews at the control. Then there is AA1340, AA102, AA70, AA625, AA385, if you want to go back to 1965 and exclude all the accidents attributed to any form of technical or maintenance error or of course an act of terrorism. Not a cadet in sight and more "experience" than you could shake a stick at.

I wonder what you think aa73?

[kungfu panda]

It is clear that many passengers believe that crew experience level is an important part of safety. Why would league tables not be available to help them make their own decision?

In my view some Airlines are reducing experience to critically low levels and consumer information should be available. Pilot experience ranks higher in Imortance to many people than lost luggage and on-time arrivals.

All I think is transparency should be equally applied to all issues.

Looking at recent media coverage in case of an incident the first thing the public want to know is what level of experience the crew had.

Beazlebub- I agree experience is no guarantee of safety. Just one aspect.

[latetonite]

Experience is not understood by the public. The whole technical part of flying is not understood by the public. Just refer to a "nice landing".

A license issued by a contracting state should be looked upon as such. There should be no need to have a letter issued by that state that this license is genuine.
If pilots want to cheat, it is much easier to cheat in flying hours, than faking the complete license.

Last, but not least, flying hours say nothing, as mentioned before.
In times where everybody can buy a license, and airplanes are so reliable on automatics, one can fly half a life span without knowing what is going on.

[kungfu panda]

Lateonite- It is a very very good point that everybody can buy a license these days therefore maybe experience is far more important than the license itself.

Regarding issuing authorities they provide a legal minimum as they do for fuel. That does not mean that legal minimum fuel is necessarily safe and if a Mayday occurs due to low fuel the public have the right to know, the same applies to legal minimum experience. In my view as Airlines are driven by cost cutting it is essential the public are kept informed of where those costs are being cut, Pilot experience is one important safety area.

A league table of average Pilot experience in Airlines would provide a guide to the public as to which Airlines truly put safety ahead of costs.

I understand that there is a lot of kick back to this view because it does not benefit cost cutting management's and it does not benefit young guys trying to move up the ladder faster than maybe is sensible. Therefore maybe it is even more important to have this kind of league table?

[FlyingStone]

You can't judge crew's abilities only by experience in flight hours. I have no idea about the average experience of crews at Air France, but since it's a legacy carrier, I'd assume they don't tend to have 3000h captains. Compare their (temporary) LOC (Loss of control) incidents in the last couple of years to the incidents of LCCs (Ryanair etc.), which tend to have less experienced crews.

If flight time was really THAT important, airlines would only hire based on that parameter alone. But when you can find captains with 15k hours that have no idea what CRM even stands for, questionable manual flying skills and money being only reason why they come to work every day - the question pops out whether a highly motivated young captain with 5000h on 60+ ton jet (737/320) is really de facto inferior to all 15k-hour pilots? I doubt it.

Don't get me wrong, there is no subsitute for experience, but it's not measured just in flight hours and therefore you can't just list the airlines by crew's flight time experience. It is as if somebody would list airlines by number of incidents and forgot to divide it by sectors flown - an airline with 200 aircraft each flying 4-6 sectors per day is obviously more likely to have a f*-up or two in 30 year history than a summer-charter company with 5 aircraft.

[latetonite]

I refer to previous post, the public cannot judge, due lack of technical and insight knowledge.

What is the difference between 3000 hrs and 10000 hrs? As hours are the only way experience is expressed? What is it supposed to mean to the general public?

As now all pilots are referred to as 'drivers', does one deem it important taking a taxi with the driver experience advertised on the front window?

These days everything seems to be going haywire, without limits.

[ZFT]

A league table of average Pilot experience in Airlines would provide a guide to the public as to which Airlines truly put safety ahead of costs.

Why stop there?

Why not an equally meaningless league table of average experience of engineers, average airframe age and hours.

It is the regulators job to ensure safety compliancy in all aspects of aviation and the public must have total faith in that system.

[speedrestriction]

ZFT - I agree 100%; that is why there is SMS to take an holistic view of the overall risk and safety of an operation.

If there is an irrational focus by the media on pilot hours when it comes to a news story then rather than feed the ignorance we should be ensuring that representative bodies are attempting to educate and inform the media in order that they provide more meaningful analysis.

[kungfu panda]

The question for me is why would you not put the information out there to let the public decide whether it's useful or not?

They have plenty of other league tables, why not allow the public to decide if the experience of the people whose hands they are putting there lives into should be the most or the least experienced.

Most wouldn't even consider it, some would.

[speedrestriction]

Kungfu Panda, my two questions to you then are:

Do you believe that pilot experience is the most useful metric as a predictor of future accident rates?

Do you believe that the company with 12 ASRs per 1,000 departures or 20 ASRs per 1,000 departures is safer?

[Superpilot]

As always the two extreme sides of the topic are debated. When most of us talk about experience being ignored in preference to non-experience, we are talking about those pilots with around 5 years (+/- a few years) in the industry and who lead a life that depends on them being employable should their employers going bust. The cadet hiring model British airlines are all to fond off, denies UK born and based pilots that right (yes, I'm calling it a right). How can a system which only hires pilots at a junior level be sustainable for this career choice?

[latetonite]

Let me tell you this: If ever a passenger comes to ask me about my experience and wether I am qualified for the task, he will be off loaded.

[kungfu panda]

speedrestriction- My view is that experience plays an important role in safety.

I think some European Airlines are reducing the experience levels to what I would consider to be critically low. As I said before- just like Flying around on Min. Fuel for all scenario's.

I don't have an answer for you regarding the ASR question. My view is things happen in Aviation. Given training standards between two Airlines being equal then the most experienced Airline would probably have the least ASR's.

Latetonite- What kind of argument is that, of course you should not be asked individually what your experience is. we are talking about company averages.

I can also assure you that if it was in the interest of certain Airlines to be published then it would be. It is an important part of safety, and would put pressure on Airlines to increase experience levels and would therefore only be beneficial. Transparency is vital as well.

[Chocks Away]

Interesting argument posed initially and a few peoples' arogance obviously being prodded by it. Obviously a difference between long haul and "Domestic/Regional" hours (done both so coming from a good angle here) but I pose a better question that is in desperate need and will leave a lot of red faces and people leaving/not entering the conversation possibly:

Should the public know if the pilots' qualifications & claimed hours are legitimate?

The rise of fake hours and forged licenses has surged not only throughout Asia & the subcontinent but globally , while the "gold old log-book check" (the REAL one, where the airline returns your books via secure mail some days latter after an in depth check!) has disappeared and just become a general flick through, looking for stamps. This may explain why many can not fly visually, hands-on, no automation.

[kungfu panda]

Fake hours is a different argument. I tend to believe most peoples claimed hours are close to the truth because the industry is so small that everywhere you go somebody knows somebody who knows you from a previous company. They know what you've been Flying and roughly how much. Most companies in the middle east and Asia now need your computer print out of block hours from your previous company and references covering the previous five years from "known" management Pilots.

Different argument though...

[latetonite]

I do not need any paperwork to prove your credentials. I want to see you ten minutes in the simulator.

[Piltdown Man]

A pilot's experience has little to do with safety. For a start, the majority of prangs are with high houred, experienced pilots. So just for that reason, publishing this data would serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever. Furthermore, I don't trust the media (it's they who rely on that idiot Yates for "expert" opinion) nor the traveling public to use data in any meaningful way. A useful and worthwhile published list would be an independent score of a pilot's ability. It would also include the number of take-off and landings in the past 30 days, the amount of hand-flying vs automatic flight, the number of visual and non-precision approaches, the number of FDM exceedences etc. and so forth. But that data will never be released. There would be little long haul flying. The Queen would never fly (unless BA management massage the figures or let a "gash" line pilot fly her) and our friends at RYR would probably top the "ability" table.

[speedrestriction]

Kungfu Panda,

The airline that has 20 ASRs per 1000 departures might have a much more pro-active safety culture that strongly encourages incident and risk reporting thus allowing the airline to have a better awareness of where the risks are and allows it to mitigate those risks more effectively than 12 per 1000 departure airline where the risks are not being identified as successfully. Which airline is more at risk?

My point is that numbers on their own are pretty ineffective in communicating how safe an airline is. Experience is important but no more so than company culture, training, rostering/fatigue etc etc etc. As a group of professionals we probably shouldn't encourage passengers to reduce complex issues into overly simplistic equations such as experience=safe, it isn't in anyone's interest.

[kungfu panda]

Speedrestriction- I agree with most of what you say, it just comes down to the fact that a large part of a safety culture is transparency. Information available to a free media is an important part in a democracy of improving safety and reducing corruption. The media appear to be so ignorant because of the lack of information provided to them.

Piltdown Man- "A Pilots experience has little to do with safety"....then you go on to call somebody else an idiot...do I need to say more?

[RHS]

Another comparison to draw is the Cathay Second Officer cadets, whilst I'm sure all are very qualified good guys, their first 1000/1500 hours is all autopilot in, above 10000ft. But all with a legacy carrier on a wide body. Compare that to a regional TP FO. Short tight runways 4/6 sector days, lots of NPA's and circling approaches, lots of aircraft malfunctions.

Both have 2000 hours, but you can't really compare the two when it comes to average hand flying skills and experience.

[Bealzebub]

So if I fly with a new cadet tomorrow we have 21,400 hours in the cockpit. Would the public be reassured? If I fly with an F/O who has (on performance) been passed over for command for many years, we have 35,000 hours in the cockpit, would the public be reassured? One of my colleagues who has held a command on type for 6 years has 8,000 hours and is flying with an ex-cadet first officer who has 2500 hours, would the public be reassured? If that same captain flies with a cadet who has been with us for one year there is 9,000 hours experience in the cockpit, would the public be reassured?

When the public put their faith in an airline, it is usually on the basis that the airline is subject to, and complies with, regulatory oversight. It is on the basis that the airline has a rigorous standard of crew training, maintenance , and a general safety culture. I don't have any problem at all with somebody placing a blackboard with my (or my crews) experience written on it, at the boarding gate. I would be amazed if it made any difference to anybody at all. Would this transparency extend to gender, or age, or sexual orientation, or race or nationality, in those countries where that is permitted? Would it extend to OPC/LPC global marking? Would it extend to your training history (warts and all?)

The problem I have with the concept (and in fairness there doesn't appear to be any real end user need or demand,) Is that it is meaningless. Obviously I understand that the hypothesis is that perhaps the public could be frightened into believing a problem exists, that might otherwise help to unblock a career path for specific individuals who are simply exasperated by the fact. Should that be made transparent as well?

[Wireless]

How would it be measured?

Airlines with very long seniority systems and high rates of staff retention would have the highest average. Then the airlines that people are keen to stay with long term but recruit cadets the second. The lowest would be the airlines with a relatively high turn over of crew that recruit low hour guys too.

Point being say Easyjet. A company a lot of guys stay with long term when reaching command but recruit a lot of cadets. If an average is simply drawn across both ranks, the high hours of the captains who've stayed there a long time would pull up the average figure and mask the woefully low hours of the bulk of the new entrants, even more so in the case of BA.

What a simple average experience cheese slice would miss is the airlines with a huge gradient of experience. A better understanding would be to show the 2 ranks independently. I don't see any venture in this idea as the currency is meaningless to the public. There's no basis for comparison.

[kungfu panda]

The regulatory body is there to lay down an absolute minimum not to put in place an acceptable Norm, therefore from this point of view forget the regulatory body. The danger, as with fuel in recent years, managements have used the absolute minimum as the norm, I think this is clear. It has to stop.

The only way to deal with this situation, as with UK schools, is to use League tables as way to shame Airlines who do use absolute minimum flight deck experience as a norm. I understand that League tables are not perfect but their imperfections can be made clear and they can be used as a guide for consumers.

It has to be clear that experience levels in some Airlines are becoming shockingly low, where you have crew with total experience of maybe 3000 hours, all of which very localised. These crew members may not have even avoided a thunderstorm between the the two of them or made a real low visiblity Landing.

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 intelligent articulate views please address the real problem rather than throwing out decoys.

[Bealzebub]

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.

[speedrestriction]

Kungfu Panda The regulatory body is there to lay down an absolute minimum not to put in place an acceptable Norm, therefore from this point of view forget the regulatory body.

You may be interested to read the following from CAA 2011-2016 Strategic Plan:

Performance based regulation
Under the Enhancing Safety Programme (ESP), we are developing a risk and performance based approach to regulation – known as Performance Based Regulation (PBR). It goes beyond simply ensuring compliance with rules, aiming to identify the highest aviation risks to the UK passenger and general public across the total aviation system, and to ensure that the management of these risks is effective. By assessing and prioritising the risks, we are able to target our resources in the most important areas and determine the safety outcomes that are most important to pursue.

[Aluminium shuffler]

Hours in a log book don't make pilots much safer, so experience measured in that manner is a red herring. Hours spent thumb-up-arse over the Atlantic or Pacific, napping while your colleague reads a paper is worse than useless - you're gaining no experience benefit but are still ageing and time is still passing since you last hand flew. Useful experience is dealing with unusual issues, like bad weather, tech problems, crew issues (illness or CRM issues) and dealing with cockups.

I see a mixture of colleagues, some new cadets fresh out of flying schools, some with prior GA experience and some experienced in the airlines. There is no trend in their ability; each has to be judged on merit. What is noticeable is how ability and safety follows attitude. The smart ones listen and watch closely, and rarely have to see something twice to pick it up. They cherry pick the best bits from all the skippers they fly with and make their own tailored toolkit, thinking and adapting to new situations seamlessly. The cocky ones don't learn much, having decided they know more than the old guys sitting next to them, and so have no toolkit and no adaptablity.

So, what do hours on paper signify? Sweet FA.

Having an incident per 1000 sector ratio for each company would be revealing of company cultures, which severely affect safety, and would be useful to passengers, but not break downs of pilots' hours.

[Peter47]

Should promotion to captaincy be based on total experience including that gained prior to joining an airline so as to maximise the experience of the captains? Logical but I doubt that the idea would go down well with the crews of legacy carriers.

European national carriers have put low hour DEPs into the RHS since the introduction of the two pilot cockpit. Its generally considered that ab initio training schemes produce very high quality pilots. I don't know whether there is any statistical correlation between safety and the rate of growth of the aviation industry (which is the primary determinant of average experience). Safety rates have certainly improved since the days of high growth in the 60s but I suspect that there are other factors at work explaining this.

There are those who believe that the best pilots are ex-military (particularly in the US where the preference seems to be for ex fighter types). The recent 1,500 hour regulation in the U.S. includes a limited exemption for ex-military pilots. I've spoken to some senior pilots who would prefer lower hours ab initio trainees than higher hours ex RAF or Navy. (Note, I am not a pilot myself, my father was a military pilot for a time. Also I know that generalising is often not helpful.)

In some other areas there is often an preference for younger people who are considered quicker at picking things up. This is particularly true in I.T. (where in truth there is age discrimination). Might there be a conflict between older experienced flyers with better flying skills and younger guys who can find their way around glass cockpits quicker?

[Tarq57]

latetonight had the correct answer here (http://www.pprune.org/terms-endearment/539425-should-average-pilot-experience-levels-each-airline-public.html#post8469935).

There is no point in publicising information which will be interpreted out of context by some media commentator.

[grounded27]

It may be to the advantage of an airline to list generic average numbers if it beats the competator, the same as average age of the fleet of aircraft. Also incident percentage records. Could start a whole lot of mud slinging in a marketing war as on time performance, direct flights etc are also factors.

As to the correlation between experience/hours/hours on type etc. There are so many variables that it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to determine who is the better pilot. The most difficult factor I can think of is a high time pilot becoming complacent and the low time pilot suffering from a lack of experience. The low time but sharp and vigilant pilot with a high level ov awareness could be the better pilot while the high time pilot who could have seen and experienced just about all one can knowing quickly what to do in any adverse condition eg: suix city, Sully on the Hudson etc. Wow having said that how many of you have ever heard of a novice saving a flight from certain desaster, does anyone remember the name of the F/O flying with Sullenberg?

[C-141Starlifter]

Jeff Skiles

[RHS]

Spot on, I know FO Skiles had more total time than sullenberger and had actually been a Capt on another type previously, but in Sullenbergers book he makes specific reference to the fact FO Skiles had only just come on type as being a huge benefit as he was very familiar with the QRH and knew the exact pages to look at.

Now tell a passenger the first officer has 100 hours on type, on this baseless comparison of hours most would probably get off.

[Calmcavok]

Should Average Pilot Experience Levels Of Each Airline Be Public?


No. The regulator should be held to account as each airline abides by the regulator.

Case in point, the FAA post-Colgan. But does 1500hrs maketh the pilot, probably not. That's a different argument.

An experience level league table without context is pointless. To add context would make the league table pointless as it would be a massive document. Ergo let the regulators do their jobs and hold them to account.

You say that transparency is part of improving safety and reducing corruption. Would transparency be meaningful in this area after all the replies you've had so far? Who is corrupt?

I'd bet that there are more commercial jet transport incidents & accidents attributable to folk with very high hours than very low hours. I sense a personal agenda here, as your point is moot.

[Bealzebub]

Case in point, the FAA post-Colgan. But does 1500hrs maketh the pilot, probably not. That's a different argument.

I posted the following answer in another thread, but copy it below.

The Colgan captain had around 3,300 hours and the first officer 2,200 hours. On Air France the captain had 11,000 hours and the two f/o's 6,600 and 3,000 hours respectively. Not a single one of these pilots would have been precluded by a 1500 hour minimum tariff. The Colgan captain had a history of numerous failed check rides during his training and was regularly commuting some 1200 miles from his home in Florida. The first officer was also regularly commuting 3000 miles from her home in Seattle. Fatigue was cited as a likely contributory factor.

[clunckdriver]

The insurance industry seem to know how to asses risk when writing paper on the various aircraft and pilots we {my wife and I} have owned and employed over the years , if they don't get it right they will be belly up in no time, {as indeed did happen to a discount insurer a few years back} maybe we should look at whatever system they use to asses risk in a more meaningful way than straight hours?

[kungfu panda]

Sorry but it's absurd to suggest that I have an agenda because I believe that the low experience levels operated by some Airlines needs to be addressed. The managements of these Airlines and the training organisations clearly have the agenda.

Bealzebub, your historical information is interesting but it is irrelevant because the era of the super low experience crew has only been around for a very short while and statistically there has not been time to prove it safe or not.

Experience is like a brand, you buy Coca-Cola rather than the other cola because you know you can trust it. You and your 15,000 hour mate in the RHS are a brand, we know you've seen a lot and we know we can trust you. That 3000 hour crew may have been exceptional in the simulator but we certainly don't know yet if we can trust them in the real world.

Even I would not send my family with that 3000 hour crew so of course this information would never be allowed to be public.

As somebody previously posted, Soux city would have been a lot more bereaved families and the Hudson River would have been the New york city disaster had it not been for very experienced pilots on board.

I don't doubt that training and good procedures are very important, but experience is even more important. League tables would show who is cutting corners on this most vital aspect of safety. There is a need for it and would be a demand for it, if it was available.

Forget discussing the self improver, it hasn't existed for the best part of two decades.

[Fair_Weather_Flyer]

Telling the public meaningless numbers about pilot hours, that are supposed to indicate safety levels does not seem like a great idea to me. However I'm sure that in the event of an accident, the media will have a field day if one or both of the pilots is found to have low levels of experience.

It's the job of the regulator to ensure that standards are kept high and part of that is maintaining experience levels. Instead, many European regulators have allowed a dysfunctional environment to build up where experience is seen as worthless. Airlines seek to drive everything down to the minimum and attract talent from a pool of applicant, massively diluted by being based on the ability to pay for training. Huge staff turnover in some cases is just seen as means of raising more training revenue and driving cost down further. This is what has to be got accross to the public.

[kungfu panda]

In a democracy the regulator's are answerable to a free media, like it or not. It is the way it has to be to ensure that they do their jobs properly.

[speedrestriction]

Kungfu Panda, you wrote:
"Bealzebub, your historical information is interesting but it is irrelevant because the era of the super low experience crew has only been around for a very short while and statistically there has not been time to prove it safe or not."

On what data are you basing your assertion? If you can share your source perhaps we can have a more informed debate. In the past two airlines I have worked for (both big companies) the average flightdeck experience is significantly higher than when I started flying a decade ago.

[kungfu panda]

speedrestriction- I prefer not to talk about the individual Airlines, I understand that many Airlines operate with high average experience.

There are a couple airlines which I know are moving to operating 2500 hour Captains or little more with recently graduated cadets. As JS says "I couldn't disagree with this more" to me it is obviously unsafe.

I do believe that regulators should be answering much more to the media or to their government but currently they seem to have a free hand.

[JW411]

Keep digging; your hole is getting bigger by the moment.

[kungfu panda]

I just want to post something my wife just said after reading this thread:

A few years ago her little cousin did an advanced driving course with the RAC. He was bragging to her that he was now officially a safer driver than his Mum and Dad. Three weeks later he crashed his brand new MX-5 into a tree.
years later he acknowledges he was a little immature.

[JW411]

I did my first flight as captain of a four-engined turboprop with exactly 1474 hrs and 30 mins in my log book. I retired in 2006 having flown professionally for 47 years without even scraping the paint off a wingtip and having subsequently taught dozens and dozens of young men how to be professional airmen.

To my knowledge, not one of them has ever let me down.

I really think you would do yourself an enormous favour to drop this ridiculous argument.

You are quite simply trying to flog a dead horse and the average punter wouldn't give a monkey's for your idea even if you could get someone in serious power to listen to you.

Sorry to be so negative.

[kungfu panda]

Thanks JW411- I totally agree that I'm flogging a dead horse but sorry, I want to flog it...

I don't think the argument is ridiculous.

I don't have your experience but I have enough to know that you get safer the more you have, generally. I am also aware that the experience levels in some Airlines are becoming much lower now than they were at any Airline before you retired. Respect for experience has also been largely discarded since you retired.

Do me favour though, don't tell me that I'm digging myself a hole again, I think this is the second time. Thank you.

[Bealzebub]

Sorry but it's absurd to suggest that I have an agenda because I believe that the low experience levels operated by some Airlines needs to be addressed. The managements of these Airlines and the training organisations clearly have the agenda. Yet you seem to have little problem in suggesting other people have agendas based on nothing more than your own absurd construction?

Bealzebub, your historical information is interesting but it is irrelevant because the era of the super low experience crew has only been around for a very short while and statistically there has not been time to prove it safe or not So "historical information" is irrelevant and the basis of your assertion lacks any evidence to suggest it is "safe or not"?

I do believe that regulators should be answering much more to the media or to their government but currently they seem to have a free hand

Regulators are an emanation of the state so they do and are answerable to the government of that state. As far as I am aware they also provide information to the media when requested or required. However I assume you mean the same media that is subject to unending criticism for its lack of insight, accuracy, or understanding in most of the threads on these forums?

On what data are you basing your assertion? If you can share your source perhaps we can have a more informed debate. In the past two airlines I have worked for (both big companies) the average flightdeck experience is significantly higher than when I started flying a decade ago Yes, I am curious as well. I have been flying professionally for over 35 years and haven't seen a significant overall reduction of quantitative experience in the flight deck. In the case of cadet first officers, they have been around long before I started flying. They didn't figure much in accident reports 40 years ago, thirty years ago, twenty years ago, ten years ago, or last year! "Experienced" pilots on the other hand......!

Look, the vast majority of professional pilots are committed, dedicated, mature, and intelligent individuals. Experience is then simply a measure of the quantitative time period they have spent developing those qualities in those roles. These days I see a lot of relatively young F/O's who attain the requirements on a sustained basis for a command at or around the minimum levels set down for such consideration. Unless they consistently demonstrate those standards that promotion will simply not happen. It isn't a right of passage or indeed a right of anything. Many individuals will not meet the required standards at the minimum point for doing so, and so will require more "experience" and development in their current roles before being considered further. A few will simply never make the grade. Of course in this latter group you are going to find some of the most "experienced" F/O's on the planet. However that "experience" in some cases is a by-product of not meeting the necessary standards for promotion. Do you think the "media" should be provided with this information so it can provide the transparency and "league tables" with which the public can then supposedly make their informed choices?

league tables are all well and good in reinforcing what you want to believe, but they rarely provide an honest or accurate overall picture. For example, take one that already exists such as delay statistics. There are few of us that aren't familiar with the concept of pushing back off stand on schedule to satisfy the league tables, only to spend lengthy periods of time sitting on a remote holding stand waiting for our delayed slot time to roll around. Similarly, those airlines who simply cancel their flights in order to avoid appearing in the delay statistics. I think the OP mentioned school league tables, yet the best (often private) schools are exempt from appearing in such tables thereby distorting the real picture.

[kungfu panda]

JS- I absolutely do not ignore the evidence presented to me, I think as you can tell, I have read all the posts written in reply to mine.

I regard Easyjet highly as an Airline who have a structured career path which appears to respect it's pilots experience and wishes to retain that experience. Unfortunately that does not apply to some other European operators.

What evidence would you like me to back up my opinion with?

I know you quote Ryanair and Easyjet's safety record which in the case of Easyjet has been very good. I would imagine that experience levels at Easyjet are going up. However other LCC's in Europe are shifting further to lower experience.

Have you seen enough with 2500 hours to be a Captain for the first time and fly with newly graduated F/O's?

Am I wrong in making the assertion that this is happening?

In a few months they will reduce minimum command time to 1500 hours and you will articulately be telling me how safe that is, and that I'm flogging a dead horse complaining about it.

[Pablo_Diablo]

Ryanair pilots are trained to good standards, but so are many other airlines as well. The issue with inexperience though in my book if something goes wrong is you are less likely to perform as well as somebody having more experience. The more you do do something , anything, the actual skill gradually gets transferred from the one part of the memory to the motor memory and once there it enables you to free capacity and focus on other things while flying. Improving decision making as you don´t have to think so much of the actual flying, whilst still flying to good standards.

Of course there are ways airlines can try and mitigate lack of experience and one of them is to implement procedure instead micromanaging, for the inexperienced to learn by rote and apply live if needed. But to me it is still not the same.

To me it´s a function of capacity, ability and experience. Ability and capacity increase with experience so there is no shortcuts.

Of course with experience comes complacency, not doing the right thing, despite knowing better, but that is another issue.

[myekppa]

Thread theme is a load of :mad:.

Give the public experience levels? WTF for and who precisely is going to be paid to accurately collate, validate and publicise the data? You clearly have never worked outside a 1st world country before....

'Experience is an inference of ability'

That's why people give a 'work sample' at a job interview, in our case a sim ride.

Not foolproof, but a more valid way of measuring ability.

[Calmcavok]

I'm suggesting a personal agenda, as you're ignoring the logical, well reasoned replies! You're not bringing any facts or evidence to the discussion.

An airline I used to work for upgraded at 1800 hours if you fitted the bill and passed the assessment. No accidents on their record.

Experience isn't like a brand, a brand is like a brand, and that is all about marketing. Ryanair was founded 11 years before easyJet, but I'd suggest that the public would have a higher opinion of easyJet. Ryanair and Virgin Atlantic started up in the same year, same argument applies.

Extensive levels of low experience could be a concern, but that is a matter for the regulator and not to be resolved by publishing a table in the Daily Mail.

[kungfu panda]

calmcavok- Thankyou, there is no personal agenda.

I believe clearly that there is an issue here which I want to address, I understand that nothing will change by addressing it here but I'd like to put this view out there.

The problem is not the BA cadetship, which has as rightly said been going for many years, or the Easyjet Cadet scheme which is correctly combined with a career structure which allows cadets to be introduced into a professional environment with an abundance of experience.

The issue we are discussing is a new situation where non-career structures are introducing cadets into an environment where there is an abundance of very low experience within the Captain group and even the training Captain group, low experience in combination with very localised Flying.

I agree that I don't present a lot of evidence but if I'm wrong and this does not happen then please clarify that for me because my understanding is that it is happening.

If the Airline you worked for truly had a program of upgrading 1800 hour First Officers to Captain on passenger Jet Aircraft then I am absolutely horrified.

[Bealzebub]

If the Airline you worked for truly had a program of upgrading 1800 hour First Officers to Captain on passenger Jet Aircraft then I am absolutely horrified. You really need to read what is being written.
An airline I used to work for upgraded at 1800 hours if you fitted the bill and passed the assessment.

Would you be "less horrified" if they waited another year and were reassessed with 2300 hours and achieved the same result? You do seem inordinately obsessed with "never mind the quality feel the width"

You started this thread by asking:
I'm not trying to argue the benefit of experience or not but the first issue the media was interested in after both the Asiana accident and the Malaysian disappearance was the experience level of the crews.

It seems to me that Pilot experience is of public interest and to maintain transparency in the industry would it not be reasonable for an experience league table to exist for use by the media? If the Asiana accident had been crewed by the most junior captains and the most junior first officers (or indeed anybody else) it is almost certain that the accident wouldn't have occurred. It was almost certainly the prevailing set of circumstances and/or the individual actions of those concerned that resulted in that accident.

I doubt much of the "public" would have any real idea of what levels of quantitative "experience" constitute typical benchmarks in any event. Is 200 hours a lot? 2000 hours? 20,000 hours? Even for those that might share your "horror" at the thought of their flight being crewed with a level that didn't (for whatever reason) match their personal level of acceptance, the random and dynamic nature of crewing a flight means they wouldn't know what the quantitative "experience" level was until they were about to board the flight in any event.

The issue we are discussing is a new situation where non-career structures are introducing cadets into an environment where there is an abundance of very low experience within the Captain group and even the training Captain group, low experience in combination with very localised Flying. Cadets are part of a career structure. That is why they are cadets. Those cadets eventually become regular first officers once they have reached levels of quantity/ time / performance, gates. They are not released onto the line until they meet the performance standards expected of all first officers. They are then mentored, monitored and specifically assessed for a significant portion of their early careers. It is a steep learning curve and the selection and training requirements reflect that. the vast majority of cadets that I have come into contact with over they years have made their careers within the airline. Many of them are now captains and training captains. Those cadets from 15 years ago are now todays 11,000 captains. Is that enough "experience"?

I am not entirely sure I understand what you mean by the term "very localized flying"? If I take it to mean a lack of route variety, then yes that can become an issue. An airline that flies short haul routes to major airports can result in a lack of pilot exposure to more basic airports and less widespread application of non-precision or visual approaches. However an awareness of that problem (where it exists) results in a greater use of simulator exposure and real world opportunities being provided as and when they can be. However that problem is not contained to cadets, it is usually just as prevalent in experienced pilots as well.

Low experience is the same as age. Give it time and it will cure itself. I think I would most definitely fit into your definition of "experienced" and yet I do not have the slightest qualm about flying with a cadet tomorrow, or indeed a low hour f/o, or an f/o with 3000 hours, or an f/o with 20,000 hours who might have been passed over for command for the last 25 years. In a typical month I am likely to fly with all of those examples. So why are you horrified and I am not? Similarly I do not have the slightest qualm that my family might get on board an aircraft tomorrow crewed by the most junior captain and junior first officers in the company. If I have no cause for concern why on Earth should the general public?

What evidence would you like me to back up my opinion with? Anything! Unless you simply demand theoretical reinforcement of your opinion, the thread is meaningless.

[kungfu panda]

Bealzebub- Clearly your argument is very Airline specific, it is obvious that your company is able to absorb Pilots of all experience levels into the structure and provide appropriate training.

I may not have provided the evidence for my argument that you would like to see but nobody has denied that what I have said is happening.

I agree with you that training and ability is important. I don't believe that simulator training is a means to an end in itself. However much ability you have it is unlikely, with the low levels of experience which we are talking about i.e. Captain 2500 hours, F/O 250 hours, that you have seen sufficient. As an example I remember as an F/O with just under 3000 hours Making an approach to Bergamo, the ATIS gave cavok and so I was fat dumb and happy, passing about 1400' on the approach with me manually Flying we were passed a visibility of 400m. Never having seen an approach ban situation in real life and the fact that my mental capacity was eaten up somewhat by manual Flying, I would have continued but for the experienced Captain in the left seat.

You could argue that it is just me that is capable of making this type of mistake with low experience but I don't think so, and my standard of operation in the simulator Always met the required level.

The point I am making is that however good someone is in the simulator, given the real life situation, if they have not got experience to fall back on they may not cope well.

If they fit the bill and pass the assessment should a Cadet go directly into the left seat with no experience?

[Bealzebub]

The evidence I can offer can only be based on that which I have, so yes it must be specific to those companies that I have worked for. However you have also had answers from other people with their own specific evidence and examples from other companies. They are presumably different companies although the examples seem broadly similar and the comment is pretty much the same. Do you have a specific company in mind, or a set of responses that you want to hear?

I don't believe that simulator training is a means to an end in itself. Oh but it is! So many things we experience in the simulator cannot safely, practically or economically be reproduced outside of that environment, yet they are so critical to the safety and/or regularity of the operation that their simulation must be the means to an end.

The point I am making is that however good someone is in the simulator, given the real life situation, if they have not got experience to fall back on they may not cope well.
As already stated, the simulator is very often the only experience that pilots will likely encounter of specific situations. Simulation (whatever the shortcomings and limitations) often tests people to an extent that performance in that environment is far more demanding than they are ever likely to experience in day to day operations. Over the last Three decades and more, I have seen many people who are perfectly competent and relaxed on the line, who completely fall apart in the simulator. I have never seen the reversal of that situation. Those that are particularly good in the simulator (with all the stresses that are inherent with that environment,) are usually very good on the line, problems or no problems.

If they fit the bill and pass the assessment should a Cadet go directly into the left seat with no experience?Rhetorical, because it doesn't happen. Cadets are junior first officers. The progression is from cadet to a regular first officer, and only when they meet the time and performance criteria, do they then get consideration for promotion. We set that time floor at around 4000 hours, although those first officers who consistently demonstrate a high level of ability may be considered with 500 hours less than that. For a newly recruited first officer with 4000 hours they might be considered straight away, however the seniority queue would generally preclude that. An ab-initio cadet with 200 hours would require around 18-24 months before they lost the cadet status and became regular first officers, and somewhere in the region of 5-6 years in the right hand seat before they could be considered for further promotion. Even so I must again emphasise the point that being at the head of the queue is not sufficient qualification for promotion.
Other companies may well have requirements that differ from these, however broadly I would expect the requirements to be similar for aircraft of a similar size and complexity.

I don't know of any airline that considers cadets for promotion to captains. Perhaps you could offer some evidence of that, if it exists?

[kungfu panda]

So there we find the fundamental disagreement, I do not believe that simulator is a means to an end, I believe it is a very important training tool that goes hand in hand with experience.

[Aluminium shuffler]

Panda, you are closing your eyes and ears to the fundamental point made by several of us, repeatedly, that hours in a log book don't always constitute useful experience. You criticise short haul for being unchallenging, but that's where you get the most take offs and landings for a given number of hours and typically where you use the least well equipped airports and the shortest runways. Frankly, the biggest challenge for long haul is fatigue and boredom. Fly around the EU in the locos and you're landing jest on 5500' runways off NPAs in valleys, and doing a lot of contaminated runway ops in the winter too. It's also extremely congested airspace with a lot of different cultures and languages. Still think that doesn't count? Why do you think many of the legacy airlines are now specifically targeting EZY and RYR for recruitment, rather than charter or other legacy carriers?

Even then, in the rapid-fire LOCOs, experience and hours don't go hand in hand, and ability and hours are almost completely divorced. I see guys with a few years on line who have never had a diversion, and others who have just started their second season and had diversions, technical issues, medical emergencies and so on. Hours and experience are a lottery, and it's arguable as to whether it's luckier to have lots of things happen to you or none; personally, I think those who sail through with never a challenge are the unfortunate ones. But I have to say the sharpest FO I have seen yet was not only doing just his second year, but is also very young, and he was (is) exceptionally aware and capable, more so than several 15000hr captains I know.

Those who push the hours=experience=safety angle are almost exclusively frustrated long haul FOs. That might not be the case here, I don't know, but that's how it comes over.

[JW411]

Or else he might not have come up to FR standards?

[Calmcavok]

Don't be horrified! It's not a good look.

You're again missing the main reason why publishing a league table is a bad idea: context. The 1800hr upgrade was possible and a few did it in that time. It was/is an airline that has a huge mix of experience, be it cadet, ex-mil, ex-legacy or returning expats. Captains with between 2000 - 15000+ hours. Most upgraded with more time than the minimum. The average sector length was around an hour, so you could have had 1600 odd sectors under your belt when it came for command assessment. And all achieved in around 3 years. In my current gig, I'll find it a stretch to do much more than 300 sectors in 3 years, but the average sector is considerably longer than an hour!

I take on board your example, but it's a weak one. You were working hard, the skipper wasn't, he had more capacity at that moment most likely. Probably wondering why you were still in the clag at 1400' on a CAVOK day! You'll always go somewhere for the first time, be it 200hrs or 10000hrs

A league table as you describe, despite being pointless, would never be subscribed to by any airline. If you're concerned by particular operators, name them and explain why. Then we might be able to understand your position better.

[Aluminium shuffler]

JW, I'm not sure if your post is referring to my preceding one. Just in case it is, I don't want to get into a debate over standards in individual companies, because that too can be misleading - there are good and bad everywhere, and the reasons for the bad vary; they could be bad because of a lack of aptitude, holes in their training or because they are too scared of management to do what is right and instead just do what they're told. And while I don't think EZY or RYR pilots as a whole are bad, I don't think they can be singled out as the epitome of flying either - some are very good indeed, and other not so much. Just like everywhere else, they have to be judged individually, not collectively. Just because a pilot might fly for a company with a bad name, it doesn't follow that the pilot must be bad too.

[kungfu panda]

JW411- Are you suggesting that FR standards are low?

AS- I don't want to re-iterate what I have already posted. I clearly have respect for the shorthaul experience that guys of Easyjet or Ryanair have. I agree with a lot of what you say. I question whether you think the sharp 20 year old in his second year of operation should be Captain and the less sharp 15000 hour guy should be his F/O. Then maybe we could make that sharp 20 year old an F/O when he is a less sharp 15,000 hour guy. We could kind of go into a reverse career path.

[Aluminium shuffler]

Panda, I'm not entirely comfortable with 3000hrs being sufficient for a jet command, but then again, it's a minimum and not a qualifier. I agree that the industry needs to ensure commanders are suitably experienced, and frankly I don't think many FOs get enough experience in 3k unless they're in the habit of shooting albatross. The average guy may see one or two weather diversions and a single tech issue, but that's probably about it. Some of the more fortunate ones will see more, but some of the guys I know who are due for command soon in these outfits and have passed their screening have never diverted. I can't help feeling that was a factor in the mess that was the MAD-VLC mass diversion. But, I still think that hours per se are a misleading indicator for experience, especially amongst long haul pilots who spend most of their flight time dong relatively little but checking the nav and fuel consumption. As long as pilots are selected on aptitude and given suitable training, then experience will continue to play only a smaller role in safety.

[Bealzebub]

I feel this thread has become Kafkaesque, if indeed it wasn't to begin with.

[PENKO]

I agree with you that training and ability is important. I don't believe that simulator training is a means to an end in itself. However much ability you have it is unlikely, with the low levels of experience which we are talking about i.e. Captain 2500 hours, F/O 250 hours, that you have seen sufficient. As an example I remember as an F/O with just under 3000 hours Making an approach to Bergamo, the ATIS gave cavok and so I was fat dumb and happy, passing about 1400' on the approach with me manually Flying we were passed a visibility of 400m. Never having seen an approach ban situation in real life and the fact that my mental capacity was eaten up somewhat by manual Flying, I would have continued but for the experienced Captain in the left seat.

You would probably not be sitting there fat dumb and happy if you were a 3000 hour captain faced with this situation. You cannot compare your 3000 hour self to other low hour captains. Merely switching seats changes your outlook on the situation...

Anyway. Many legacy airlines have very young and 'unexperienced' pilots, left AND right seat, on their short haul fleet. This is nothing new. They hire cadets who become short haul captains at the first opportunity. Been like this for ages..

What I see very clearly on the line is that a proper selection before a cadet starts flight training says ten times more than experience. I'm not discounting experience, but it is but one of many factors.

[Piltdown Man]

...not entirely comfortable with 3000hrs being sufficient for a jet command.

Jet, Turboprop, Piston Single, Glider - It doesn't matter. What counts is the selection, training and thinking of the crews.


...the mess that was the MAD-VLC mass diversion.

Was due to the weather. More fuel would have enabled them hold for longer, with no guarantee of a better outcome. And although I can not stand RYR, I do rate their pilots. They are some of the best in the industry. Also, whenever there are mass diversions I've learned that a yellow streak is a good thing to have. Beat the rush, nick the best parking spots, get fueled, get the buses etc.

[Uplinker]

Having thought about this, I suspect there is probably a 'Normal distribution', ("bell curve") of pilot's ability against their age.

By ability, I mean a combination of experience and competance.

Experience implies age but it is not a direct connection. Experience cannot be measured by total hours alone (because for example widebody jet cruise pilots hours are not comparable to "Low Cost" turboprop hours). Take offs and landings and types flown perhaps need to be taken into consideration too.

So young pilots with very little experience generally have less 'ability' than the norm, but much older pilots who have a lot of experience but who may be slowing down in their thought processes also might have reducing ability - hence possibly why some accidents happen to very experienced pilots?

However, age is not a reliable indicator either, because one 50 year old pilot might have been flying since they were 17, another might be a career changer in only their 5th year of flying.

I also think that this preoccupation by newspapers of a pilots' hours probably comes from the same reason that makes reporters want to quote people's ages. It's not usually all that relevant, but it gives them something to write?

[lifeafteraviation]

I don't see any reason why such information (average pilot experience) can't be published based on a sample data. Other than worrying about the airline filing a lawsuit which shouldn't be a problem if you publish factual information and issue a disclaimer about the statistical probability for error.

The information should be published based on carrier name, not operator. Many large airlines outsource their flying to low cost operators who carry the name of the larger airline...such as the regional airlines in the USA.

The problem with the regional airlines in the USA is that they split their pilot pool across several code share partnerships so one day a pilot could be flying under the Delta Airlines name and the next day under USAirways or something like that. A solution could be to use averages based on number of flights used in each code share compared with experience average for that operator.

Then you have to place the data in a context that the public could understand and care about. For example...if airline A with 2000 pilots has an average experience level of 5000 hours and airline B with 3000 pilots has an average of 5500 hours....does that really matter to anyone?

I think whats more important is the general spread of the curve, not the average. For example, airline A has pilots that range from 250 hours up to 13,000 hours while airline B's lowest experienced pilot is 3000 hours.

[PENKO]

So what do you do with a legacy airline that has it's junior crew flying the little Fokkers and Embraers whilst the more experienced crew progress to the heavier metal? If you use the average experience, you would think that the crew flying your little Embraer is vastly experienced, whereas the may not even have 3000 hours combined!


Shows you that this idea will not work in any way or form.

[lifeafteraviation]

So what do you do with a legacy airline that has it's junior crew flying the little Fokkers and Embraers whilst the more experienced crew progress to the heavier metal?

See there are no airlines like that in the USA. Other than JetBlue and USAirways operating E190s I can't think of any operator in the USA that operates RJs alongside Boeings or Airbus. Does anyone still fly Fokkers?

Maybe the OP had European airlines in mind? Except I thought he was an American working in China. In China they don't really move pilots from smaller planes to larger planes...they all pretty much stay in whatever they are assigned to.

Shows you that this idea will not work in any way or form.

Pretty much...but...

...if it did become an public issue and airlines really did have to compete for those top rankings...they may be inclined to back off the outsourcing model that's bringing their numbers down. Or, in the case of some other airlines (not in the USA) that bring very low time (and low paid) pilots into the larger equipment...to stop doing that. After all, no one airline will want to be labelled as having the least experienced pilots in their cockpits even if just by a small margin...just like they don't like having the oldest fleet in the country.

Actually I think such a ranking system would be very doable...maybe it's something Consumer Reports should publish a story on.

[polax52]

Looking at the Ryanair threads here it appears Ryanair management will happily recruit less and less qualified guys just to keep the operation going. Is there really any oversight? Because it sure doesn't look like it. Maybe experience levels should be published.

[angelorange]

Fast track to A320/B737 then 1000s of hours burning holes in the sky on automation

Both FO and SO on AF447 were Integrated, sponsored cadet route under 250h then straight onto A320 then A330 and 340 automation for 10 years.....

Now we reduce that 250h flying course to the MPL: less solo experience than a PPL/Private pilot, and as low as 70h real flying before SIM and then pax flying.......


USA going the opposite route - better fatigue rules than EASA and 1500h rule plus a min of 10h full motion SIM and 30h g/school before you can take the ATP from August 1st 2014.......


Up to retirement age, old and less bold tend to live longer than young and rash. That's why car insurance is so ridiculously high for youngsters no matter how well they can drive. On the flip side, many (accountants) decry experience these days, but it is in fact possible for the brain to continue to make new connections well in to old age but that means doing the cross word or similar and not just relying on old habits!

[CaptainProp]

Comlux now advertising for "Commander – XRS Global Express (G6000 Vision) - Living in Almaty".....and in the add one can read "Minimum experience (total time) 2’500 hours. Rating on BD700 or G5000".

2,500 hrs total time and being PIC of a 100,000lb aircraft with intercontinental range??!! I don't know about you but most people I have met in my career with 2,500 hrs total time would not be ready for this.

Mr Oligarch Billionaire is more concerned about the cost of a Global rating than his own life apparently. Beats me......

[root]

Sure, those tables could be published.

And right next to it let's publish a graph detailing the ratio of accidents to total company flown sectors. And right next to that one should be a graph average number of passenger lives lost against years of operation.

Then let's see if you're still getting the desired result. Which is obviously taking a stab at low costs, let's not beat around the bush.

[cockney steve]

I am "Joe Public" Not in the industry (but have hung around PPrune for a couple of years)
I have not the slightest interest in the Flight crews'experience.
I take it on trust that any first-world carrier is not going to entrust their multi-million pound asset to a pair of nincompoops....that's before we get to the issue of regulatory oversight.....however poor that may be, it sets the bar high enough to concentrate the minds of the bean-counters...and that's where it 's all at!...MAKING MONEY! the cost of getting the flight-crew wrong, is much higher than the cost of getting it right.....MOL might treat his staff poorly, BUT his Company selects ABLE staff, he offers a good, safe product and the thrilling mongs buy it! (me included:) )
I went to school with a lad who could pass all the exams, yet he had zero understanding of his subjects and learnt by rote. he could have passed all the pilot exams , but I wouldn't have trusted him pushing a shopping trolley on an icy path.
I am in total agreement with the "up through the ranks" philosophy....buying a place in the cockpit of a shiny jet is, of itself, not a good or safe way forward.

IMO,the LOCo's have got it right, that's why they've run rings round the legacy carriers. they have smart, able pilots, train them well and give them good tools to do the job with.
My late mother took some 16 attempts to pass her driving test in an automatic car..ON THE ISLE OF WIGHT, WITH ONE ROUNDABOUT AND ONE SET OF TRAFFIC LIGHTS....she had plenty of experience (abroad) and knew the test "circuits" better than the examiners....after an appeal against yet another fail, she was retested in the presence of a mainland Supervisor.....the bloody fool passed her...she was totally lethal and I never passengered her, too many ashen-faced accounts of hairy trips with her driving!

Experience? worth a lot more than "hours" Aptitude and ability? worth more than all the hours and"experience" (with training,of course!)

[Tourist]

What idiot decided that experience should be counted in hours or sectors?

Your average 2000hr military pilot has "experienced" more events of different types than an airline pilot with 20,000hrs.

[Wirbelsturm]

I would also humbly suggest that experience is gathered within the theatre you fly not necessarily the equipment you fly and for how long you fly it. You get more 'comfortable' the longer you are on a specific aircraft but that's about it.

Fast jet jockeys gain experience very quickly within their particular sphere of aviation and the same can be said for HEMS, SAR, Relief flying, Christian aid, instructing etc. etc. etc.

The trick is being able to draw on these experiences from differing scenarios and apply them in an acceptable manner into the current environment that you fly. Personality and 'approachability' figure massively in this bit of the equation.

Experience can be gained in many ways but the application of that experience is the key. Hours can be totally irrelevant it's just a filter.

[Tourist]

I agree that experience is gathered in any particular theatre, however due to the laudable improvements in engineering and standards worldwide, that experience gathers in a glacial manner in the airline world.
Experience is gathered not from seeing the same thing a million times (though more than once is a benefit) so much as how many things you see.

During my time in an airline I was taught about many emergencies by instructors who were excellent in technique but had no experience of said emergency.

The reality of engine failures/fire, smoke in the cockpit, decompression, bird strike, death on board, diversions etc are never the same as potted exercises.

I also noticed that the quality of those I flew with bore no relation to their hours.

[Wirbelsturm]

Tourist,

I would wholeheartedly agree with you. Airliners are designed to operate in an environment with very wide safety margins, and quite rightly too. Hence actual experience gained from real life events is, indeed, limited if you have only ever flown airliners.

Simulator practice is all well and good however we seem to have come to a position where many airline pilots 'practice' hand flying in the real aircraft to 'prepare' for the simulator check. Somewhat back to front in my opinion but the sim check has become more of a hoop jumping/box ticking exercise rather than a tool for the dissemination of useful skills, practice and information.

All IMHO of course.

[AirRabbit]

Should Average Pilot Experience Levels Of Each Airline Be Public?
________________________________________
I'm not trying to argue the benefit of experience or not but the first issue the media was interested in after both the Asiana accident and the Malaysian disappearance was the experience level of the crews.

It seems to me that Pilot experience is of public interest and to maintain transparency in the industry would it not be reasonable for an experience league table to exist for use by the media?


I posted the following answer in another thread, but copy it below.
Quote:
The Colgan captain had around 3,300 hours and the first officer 2,200 hours. On Air France the captain had 11,000 hours and the two f/o's 6,600 and 3,000 hours respectively. Not a single one of these pilots would have been precluded by a 1500 hour minimum tariff. The Colgan captain had a history of numerous failed check rides during his training and was regularly commuting some 1200 miles from his home in Florida. The first officer was also regularly commuting 3000 miles from her home in Seattle. Fatigue was cited as a likely contributory factor.

WOW! Where to begin?

By all media accounts of almost any accident or incident, it would seem that kungfu panda is asking a very logical question. Also, it would seem that the responders on this thread (so far, anyway), understand the direction of “KP’s” question and understand the proper direction that the answer should take. By that I mean that certainly “experience” is a factor that should, in some way, be able to provide some knowledge about the competency of an individual flight crew member. But, again, most of the responders recognize the futility in “hanging one’s hat” on the word experience. The dictionary defines this word as follows:
Experience – the process of doing and seeing things and of having things happen to you; the skill or knowledge that you get by doing something; the length of time that you have spent doing something (such as a particular job).
What is obviously missing is any quantifiable reference indicating the demarcation between “inexperienced” and “experienced.” To that point, Bealzebub pretty much shot down the “specifics” that the FAA have recently adopted in a rather flimsy attempt to appear to have correctly responded to perhaps the most easily recognized issue – very likely chosen on the basis of hoping to appear as being “responsive” to a public that wanted to see a tangible difference in regulatory standards. The experience factor that the FAA settled upon in this “rush to appear to have been responsive,” was likely thought to have been seen as having “raised the bar” for that illusive factor, and thereby, having fulfilled their responsibility. I probably don’t need to point out that the aviation business has much more than a little familiarity with participants observing someone having done something (dare I say “everything”?) the wrong way for at least some, perhaps a major portion (?), of their career – and in addition to those cases where something is not “physically seen” to be “different,” there is a hidden aspect … that of what is “thought,” “interpreted,” “analyzed,” and/or “concluded” prior to any physically recognized action being taken … which can easily confuse or aggravate any on-going issue. In these cases, a particular response to a given set of circumstances may not be recognized by an observer OR the one performing the function … until something goes wrong or partially wrong, and then what has been ‘adopted’ as a ‘satisfactory way’ to accomplish that particular task turns out to be wholly inappropriate, or ineffective, or aggravating the existing circumstance! More on this below…

On the other hand, the comment published by Bealzebub appears to be focusing on something that he may believe should have been directly addressed in that regulatory change - fatigue. It’s my opinion that the only direct regulatory change that could have been even somewhat beneficial to this specific circumstances would be to have changed the rules to require something like a minimum of 10 hours (pick a number) of uninterrupted rest at the location of the flight’s origination. But that opens a whole new set of concerns (a “can of worms” as we say in the Colonies) because someone living in New York or Atlanta or Chicago would still have to endure a pretty decent amount of commute time from their “residence” to the airport – which could easily affect “pre-departure rest” capability. In fact, there are some airplane commutes from other states in the US that take less time than automobile commutes from within the same city! Sure there are weather cancellations of flights, but there are also highway accidents that could result in the same kind of delay. This would leave the only option as a “commuter crash pad” kind of life-style … which often is not much better, if any at all, than “crashing” in the crew lounge at the departure airport. Bottom line, there is little available for the legitimate substitution for wisdom.


The regulator should be held to account as each airline abides by the regulator. Case in point, the FAA post-Colgan. But does 1500hrs maketh the pilot, probably not. That's a different argument.
While the first thought is laudable … and hopefully already exists … however, it likely exists to varying extents depending on the airline and the local regulatory authority. However, the second thought (the Colgan-generated flight time minimums to provide adequate “experience”) would only be valid IF there were some way to verify that this number would ensure a leveling of vast amounts of differences – in background, in training processes, in airplanes flown, and almost everything else. The fact is that they are relying on the regulatory requirement for “flight hours” as the understood level of competence, even though they use the word “experience.”

Requiring any specific number of flight hours to ensure that pilots have a specific level of competence, may sound simple and straight-forward, but it is, most certainly, at least questionable, given the degree of variability in backgrounds and the almost limitless variances in the kinds of flight time that exists across the airline industry. I am at a loss to understand how 1500, as a number, does anything other than occupy the space between 1499 and 1501.

The reality of engine failures/fire, smoke in the cockpit, decompression, bird strike, death on board, diversions etc. are never the same as potted exercises.
A very accurate observation … but I would point out that if the instructor is using those exercises to provide merely the awareness of knowledge, little more than that awareness is likely to be achieved. The fact is that there are different aspects of the same task where different types of information processing is required on the part of the individual student pilot. This classification system is “the skill, rule, and knowledge based (SRK) approach.” When used correctly, the system can provide a useful framework for identifying the types of error likely to occur in different operational situations.

In the “knowledge based mode,” the individual carries out a task in an almost completely conscious manner. This would occur in a situation where a beginning pilot was performing the task or where an experienced pilot was faced with a completely novel situation. In either case, the pilot would have to exert considerable mental effort to assess the situation, and his or her responses are likely to be slow. Also, after each control or other action, the pilot has to review the effect before taking any further or supplementary action, which would probably further slowdown the responses to the situation.

The “skill based mode” refers to the smooth execution of highly practiced, largely physical actions in which there is virtually no (at least very little) conscious monitoring. Skill based responses are generally initiated by some specific event, e.g. the requirement to move a switch, to turn off an audible alarm, or the adjustment of a flight control to raise the pitch or aileron control to level the wings. The highly practiced operation of those actions will then be executed largely without conscious thought.

The “rule based mode,” is another category of information processing, and, not surprisingly, is based on established rules. These rules are most typically covered in ground school (either in a classroom or remote) and are often learned as a result of interacting with some form of physical training device, after reading or reviewing those rules understanding or by working with experienced process workers. The level of conscious control is intermediate between that of the knowledge and skill based modes.

I do not believe that every instructor teaching pilots – either ground instructors or flight instructors – should be required to be knowledgeable about nor consciously use this SRK approach. However, I DO believe that the person who is responsible for developing the instructional materials, assembling the instructional curriculum, planning the operational scenarios and their logical sequences (plural), and either instructs or oversees the instruction of the ground and flight instructors should be conversant with and understand these relationships. Additionally, as I’ve said many times on this forum, having an internationally established set of criteria for pilot training, instructor training, and evaluator training should be at the bedrock of any airline training program anywhere in the world.


Simulator practice is all well and good however we seem to have come to a position where many airline pilots 'practice' hand flying in the real aircraft to 'prepare' for the simulator check. Somewhat back to front in my opinion but the sim check has become more of a hoop jumping/box ticking exercise rather than a tool for the dissemination of useful skills, practice and information.
All IMHO of course.

Sir, you win my award for “Practical Recognition of Airline Pilot Deficiencies” – and I don’t give that out very frequently! As an industry, we seem to have become overly dependent on the simulator to do and provide everything and anything of merit with respect to pilot training. Of course, I remain convinced of the value of simulation – and there are very few other aspects of modern training that are more important or more valuable than a well-constructed, well-programmed, and well-used flight simulation device … provided it is used within its capabilities, and used by well-trained and knowledgeable instructors/evaluators. Unfortunately, because there are many in this industry who are paid on the basis of providing flight crew members “ready to fly the line,” where that readiness is determined by, and sometimes only by, the satisfactory completion of training and having satisfactorily completed a flight evaluation (test), most probably relying on (sometimes exclusively) a flight simulator. Sometimes, such reliance can be narrowly viewed and miss some aspect that may become a weak-link that can develop into a potentially disastrous circumstance.

The kinds of things I’ve observed include what I’ve called “cheat-sheet” values and sequences provided to eager, “would-be” pilots who are only looking to find a definitive way to complete the training or pass the check ride. Unfortunately, those practices cannot regularly detect and/or eliminate wrongly learned or wrongly practiced flight tasks and the basic understanding of those tasks as they should be applied to line operations. Other “cheat-sheet” kinds of circumstances have included the use of the programmed capabilities of the simulator to ensure a satisfactory performance – or have included a “suggested” manner of control application and power settings to accomplish a specific kind of task or maneuver. Other circumstances involve the substitution of one task or procedure for other, required tasks or procedures, on the basis that similar control applications are used – an example might be the substituting of low altitude windshear recoveries for recoveries from stalls or approaches to stall.

Other factors, somewhat less noticeable but may be just as dangerously depended upon, is, as Wirbelsturm has described, demanding that pilots use automatic systems almost exclusively until the pilot is within a short time-proximity of having a recurrent simulator training or simulator test – and then strongly suggesting that manual flight controls be used until after that simulator exposure. While this may not be immediately recognized as a “cheat-sheet” methodology to “verify” pilot competency – it is, clearly, a last-ditch effort to ensure the pilot has an opportunity to become “re-familiarized” with what manual control of the airplane is really like … which, in effect does little more than provide a kind of “cover-up” of any potentially more serious lack of understanding of recognition, analysis, decision, and responsive action that simply has to take place 100% of the time when sitting at one of the pilot control positions on an airplane flight deck.

We certainly don’t need, and would, no doubt, be foolish to depend upon, pilots with a skill set that is “spun-up” only occasionally, and then only to ensure that the pilot will be able to complete the training or pass the check.

[angelorange]

Far too many look down from their lofty FL350 FAR/JAR25 cockpits or 1G "full motion" SIM boxes to criticize the humble flying instructor for burning holes in the sky in light aircraft. However, it is the huge number of hours flown on reliable automation, deep inside the aircraft's manouevre envelope and potted tick in the box style SIM checks that have led to a degradation of pilot flying skills and a spate of LOCI accidents that Boeing suggests have killed some 2000 people in Western Jet Airliners over a 10 year period.


These are sometimes the ones who promote the zero to hero/ MPL schemes in favour of self improver/ apprenticeship routes.

However, AF447 is a case in point with both FO and SO having JAR integrated course and minimal pre-automated Airbus flying time before the tragic event.


The truth about the Colgan Q400 is also far more nuanced than BZB's comment suggests.

It was not simply a fatigue accident ( from www.operationorange.org/colganQ&A.pdf )

How long before the Colgan Air/Continental Connection 3407 did the
captain commute to Newark?

Ans: 3 days

How long was the captain’s rest period between the end of his crew
pairing on February 11 and the scheduled report time for the crew pairing
that contained Continental Connection 3407 on February 12?

Ans. 21 hours 16 minutes

According to the NTSB, how much sleep did the 24 year old first
officer receive in the 24 hours prior to the crash of Continental Connection
3407, and how long had she been awake prior to the crash?

Ans. 9 hours / 9 hours

What was the experience level of the captain, when he applied for
employment with Colgan Air?

Ans. 618 hours, Gulfstream Training Academy, failed initial instrument
rating, failed single engine-land rating, failed multi engine-land rating,
graded “unsatisfactory” on two simulator sessions at GTA covering:
approach to stall-landing configuration, unacceptable altitude and
airspeed control, with repeated deviations.

NB: Gulfstream TA "job" on B1900 was P2F : Is P2F "customer" / voluntary worker always right if when they fail?

How much actual instrument time did the first officer have when she
applied for employment with Colgan Air?


Ans. 6 hours

How much experience did the first officer have with icing conditions
prior to her employment with Colgan Air?

Ans. None.

[polax52]

Well it is again clear that in light of the recent events; Airline pilot experience is of great interest to the media and public. Testing is not sufficient to replace experience.

[mikehammer]

Whilst I might tend to agree with you in general regarding experience, that is somewhat a sweeping statement about the recent accident before any facts as to the background of the accused and deceased first officer have actually been established, nor the investigation concluded into the cause of the crash.

[Bealzebub]

Well it is again clear that in light of the recent events; Airline pilot experience is of great interest to the media and public. Testing is not sufficient to replace experience.

Your experience as an "airline pilot" has no correlation to your desire to wilfully commit an atrocity based on your mental health, political or religious affiliations, or indeed anything else.

Historical examples have highlighted that time and time again.

Despite some extraordinary conjectures proffered for this particular event, the level of the pilots "airline experience" isn't realistically likely to be causal.

Do you honestly think that if both pilots flying experience had been available to any of the passengers there would have been a single one who would have changed their travel plans? I don't! I certainly wouldn't have done!

This is a high profile event that provides a platform for the Aerotoxic / Pay to fly / Drone worriers / etc. brigades, to torture in order to suit their own political platforms.

[Superpilot]

Do you honestly think that if both pilots flying experience had been available to any of the passengers there would have been a single one who would have changed their travel plans? I don't! I certainly wouldn't have done!

No they wouldn't but rightly or wrongly, most would be alarmed. Again, not for a legitimate reason, I grant you, but because their long held belief that the best airlines mostly hire experienced and mature pilots would be challenged.

[Bealzebub]

Not really. Most wouldn't have a clue whether 600 or 6000 was a lot. Nor should it concern them. Along with "smoking holes" and "magenta lines" it is a theoretical hypothesis used as vehicle to transport the agenda of the disaffected, rather than meaningful information used to transport the general populace.

[angelorange]

John_Smith,

Speaking with one of the chief BEA AF447 investigators at the RAeS it appears that the SO had minimal GA/gliding experience and that was in the dim and distant past. The Captain on teh other hand had a varied and more traditional background.

Certainly the SOs actions were far from what any glider pilot would do.

Strangely on the most recent SIM check they were given unreliable airspeed drill based on ADIRS issues on the exact same route as that tragic flight.


Had EASA copied the FAA and introduced the 1500h rule here then the MPL would not have seen the light of day unless there was a long term commitment from a hiring large airline to see a cadet through an apprentice like career in GA.

In addition LoCo airlines would not be able to exploit cadets on zero time contracts or the dreaded P2Fpax schemes that demanding 500h on type has created.

A decent pilot can fly an Extra 300L, a DC3, a B200, a B737, or operate as an effective A380 crew member. But unless you have exact hours on exact type with currency then no EU airline is interested. In fact they prefer a self funded MPL cadet........Contrast this with FAA rules and see how most jet jobs in the USA do not demand TR or hours on type up front. Yes the pay is much poorer than a LoCo self employed Captain in the EU but overall it's a fairer system.

[polax52]

Not really. Most wouldn't have a clue whether 600 or 6000 was a lot. Nor should it concern them. Along with "smoking holes" and "magenta lines" it is a theoretical hypothesis used as vehicle to transport the agenda of the disaffected, rather than meaningful information used to transport the general populace.

So you believe that you are entitled to Police the information that the media and the public should receive as in your opinion that information would confound them. BS, every post you make indicates a vested interest.

Miles O'Brien on CNN, quite correctly said that a 600 hour Pilot is an infant and should not be left alone on the flight deck of an A320.

[Bealzebub]

No, I don't believe I have either an entitlement or a duty to police anything, outside of those responsibilities I am properly charged with.

Miles O'Brien on CNN, quite correctly said that a 600 hour Pilot is an infant and should not be left alone on the flight deck of an A320.

I am not sure who Miles O'Brien is, but I would take serious issue with that statement in isolation. I say that with some reservation, because you are clearly attracted to the quotes of sound bite television and (as demonstrated in your reply above) erroneous assumption, and in its full context it may well mean something more?

The number of hours a pilot has accumulated is irrelevant to whether they should be left alone on the flight deck or not. I have never had any doubt (and by "any" I mean not one iota) that in the event of my incapacitation the pilot in the other seat would have any difficulty at all in taking command and flying that airliner to a suitable airport. I haven't had any doubt for the last 30 years, and I doubt I will for the time remaining to me. Nor do I have any doubt that they would be perfectly capable of dealing with an en-route engine failure, decompression or a myriad of other issues of their own volition, should such a situation ever arise.

If I did have any doubt, it would be assuaged by the fact that they had already demonstrated that ability in simulated training prior to them ever flying with me, and would continue to do so at six monthly cycles.

If I tell a random sample of my neighbours or non-flying friends how many hours I have accumulated over the years, the general response would be "is that a lot?" simply because it isn't a subject most people are well versed in. It is rather like telling people the age of the aircraft they are flying in. Many people will simply equate it to something they are familiar with (such as their car) and assume that 7 years, 10, years, 15 years, 20 years (take your pick) is a lot. Perhaps the age of the aircraft should be notified as well, or maybe the number of cycles, or airframe hours. Does it mean anything in isolation or (yet again,) is it simply a number you want to distort to suit your own agenda?

I have no particular problem with each and every passenger knowing the flying experience of myself or any other member of the crew, but why? How does it help make an informed decision if the information is in isolation? Further, having told them how many hours the airplane, captain, and F/O have amassed over their respective lifetimes, what happens when it all changes 90 minutes before the flight takes off (as it so often does)?

Nobody tells me how old the train I travel on is, or how old the driver is, or how long he has been driving for that company. Likewise the bus I get on, the cruise ship I holiday on, the taxi that picks me up. The premise is simply ludicrous!

Sorry the reply is a bit longer than a one line sound bite. I guess that is why Miles O'Brien is on CNN and I am not. ;)


PS. I did Google Miles O'Brien and (having misspelt the surname) was initially slightly stunned to discover your source might have been the Chief Engineer of the Star ship Enterprise! However I note you are referring to the respected CNN journalist, and private pilot! :)

[Cliff Secord]

Well it is again clear that in light of the recent events; Airline pilot experience is of great interest to the media and public. Testing is not sufficient to replace experience.

What a stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid statement. Did I say it was stupid? On what level do you believe maybe 8000 hours or 15000 hours shields you psychiatric problems? For example, does 8000 hours at work make you more robust when it comes to personal bereavement? Of course it doesn't you pillock. Nor would it bare any affect on schizophrenia or such mental afflictions.

Have you actually thought this through? Ring up Daily mail or Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2. They'll give you a job. Doughhead dot to dot thinking is their bread and butter.

[peacekeeper]

Good airlines train to a high standard regardless of experience. If your not good enough you don't pass, simple as that. Hours only matter if they were accumulated in an airline with a good safety culture.

[polax52]

Good airlines train to a high standard regardless of experience. If your not good enough you don't pass, simple as that. Hours only matter if they were accumulated in an airline with a good safety culture.



I am disappointed with the above 3 posts they reflect a modern disdain for experienced professionals. Regarding the recent incident; we are still awaiting a conclusion from the investigation, so to jump to conclusions such as it was a psychiatric event is entirely unprofessional.

The reason that the public should have information on experience levels is that they have dropped to historically low levels and these levels are alarming. The testing is not fit for purpose as there is almost no failure rate which is a huge culture change from 20 or more years ago. If you were just to teach somebody to pass one of these simulator tests , you could probably have them reach the required level in a week from scratch. That would not make them safe to be left alone in the flight deck of an Airliner.

I look forward to receiving some more abusive replies.

[cgwhitemonk11]

For current context to those of you who say there is no issue with current training standards....

I am currently flying for an airline in the UK, lets leave the name out please, and while i did complete an integrated course, before joining said airline i flew para drop, bush flying and small tp airliners.

I would consider myself no better than average and make the odd mistake still despite being here awhile now. Over the last week I am having poor performing FO's who joined the company long before me, from the company's cadet scheme, being hauled off the line to sit on the jumpseat behind me as their performances are not up to standard and their handling skills are poor at best.

You cannot protect against the kind of tragic incident that has happened but we can and should use it as an opportunity to highlight the deficiencies in our industry and hope the regulators do the right thing and follow the Americans.

[peacekeeper]

I think it is in bad taste to make a tragedy like this fit to an ongoing argument about Cadets to prove a point. This tragedy had nothing to do with experience levels, it was affected by mental health and a policy that allows for a single person to be left on the flight deck. It could easily have been the Captain who did the same if he had been the one suffering from a very deep mental instability (remember the Jetblue Captain). The company I fly for changed the policy on toilet breaks immediately and I'm sure many others have as well. There will probably be tighter control on mental health checks both on annual medicals and during recruitment now and this again will address the direct problem that caused this incident.

As for experience levels, there is no doubt that having experience in the area of operation you fly is important. I have often thought that we do things the wrong way around in aviation. The procedural and automated world of airline flying is very clear and can be well trained in the simulator, flying older turbo props requires more hand flying and better raw data IFR skills, and instructing requires experience to pass onto a student. However the pay is in favour of the reverse order. A new pilot has to get experience in one of these areas or come from a military background, he/she will be inexperienced when they start and could likely have passengers onboard. The training environment of an airline is a good place to start in my opinion, once of course they have been through strict selection, a CAA approved training course and a thorough line training programme and passed to the companies standard. Then it comes down to trust in the airlines training programme.

I went through the instructor, turbo prop, Jet route and can speak from experience of flying with many cadets who all seem intelligent, well trained and willing to learn. I also fly with many experienced FO's who come from different backgrounds who are a vital part of keeping overall company experience levels high.

[Avenger]

"Should Average Pilot Experience Levels Of Each Airline Be Public?"

Probably covered before, however, what's the exact benefit to the public knowing this? lets take the case of a 20000 Hr Boeing pilot that converts to Airbus, experience no effectively zero on type, probably less aware than a 100 hr cadet with time on type..of course, one could argue " overall experience in the industry" but then we also incorporate all the jurassic hobby flyers retired from the majors dozing half the flight, or the guys only used to procedural ILS city to city now flapping around in " less developed countries" for pin money, If this type of information is made public several things happen" Marketing depts TV ads " or pilots are THE most experienced" Insurance companies have excuses for premium hikes, airlines simply dodge the ball.. really can't see any useful purpose here. My Daughter is a newly qualified doctor, should we extend the principle here " in the public interest" sorry Dr you don't know my Ass from my Elbow? come on, keep the industry sensible..

[Gilles Hudicourt]

Quote:
Reaching deep into the recesses of my memory, but I'm sure at least one of the FOs had significant (current) gliding and GA time, so the argument rather falls down there.

It's the second time I read you writing this false statement. So I will set you straight.

The Pilot Flying FO, Pierre-Cédric Bonin, had a Glider Licence, period. "Significant gliding time', or "Regular" glider pilot, as you wrote in the other post is just not true. Of course you put a disclaimer in the beginning "deep into the recesses of my memory", so let me refresh your memory :

The BEA final report states he received his Glider licence in 2001, the same year he received his commercial multi IFR. Period. I never saw any other reference that Bonin was a current glider pilot or a glider enthusiasts. He had 2900 hours, most of which was straight and level on autopilot in Fly by Wire aircraft and lacked the most basic flying skills.

[Bealzebub]

I am disappointed with the above 3 posts they reflect a modern disdain for experienced professionals

No they don't! I certainly don't have any disdain for a category of pilots that includes myself. Ridiculous statement.

Regarding the recent incident; we are still awaiting a conclusion from the investigation, so to jump to conclusions such as it was a psychiatric event is entirely unprofessional. Yes perhaps, which rather begs the question why you chose to resurrect this 7 month old thread with this seemingly (let's jump on the band wagon) post:
Well it is again clear that in light of the recent events; Airline pilot experience is of great interest to the media and public. Testing is not sufficient to replace experience.

The reason that the public should have information on experience levels is that they have dropped to historically low levels and these levels are alarming. The testing is not fit for purpose as there is almost no failure rate which is a huge culture change from 20 or more years ago. If you were just to teach somebody to pass one of these simulator tests , you could probably have them reach the required level in a week from scratch. That would not make them safe to be left alone in the flight deck of an Airliner

Have they?

Long before I started in aviation, airlines such as BOAC/BEA (later British airways) and others, were running cadet pilot schemes that placed 200+ hour pilot cadets into jet airliners. They have done this for the last 50 odd years without it raising an eyebrow. I dare say there are many ex-cadets who have fulfilled an entire career and have now retired or have even shuffled off this mortal coil. Other airlines have had long established cadet programmes. I have flown with cadet pilots for the last twenty years without any particular difficulty.

The testing always seemed fit for purpose. The ab-initio training usually provided an excellent base candidate, which likely explains the low failure rate from this group. The reality was that if you took the three main recruitment groups: Military career changers; ab-initio cadets; and experienced career changers (self improvers), sadly, it was always the latter group that threw up the highest failure/re-training percentiles. This was in the days when that latter group mainly comprised 2500-3500 hour pilots.

Perhaps, instead of providing details of the hours, it might be better to provide the global marking scores each pilot achieved on their last half dozen simulator and line checks! I am sure that would provide the customer base with a more meaningful set of parameters with which to arrive at this sophisticated decision. I am still not quite sure how you would do this, or why it would be necessary, but I am guessing it might not be quite such a popular suggestion amongst some of the usual howlers on this subject!

I look forward to receiving some more abusive replies.

I don't think you have had any "abusive" replies, although presumably you mean something along the lines of: BS, every post you make indicates a vested interest. :hmm:

[rogerg]

Its not how many hours you put in, its what you put in the hours.

[Denti]

Average experience is pretty useless anyway. For example average experience for FOs in my company is probably around 5000 to 7000 hours, captains somewhere around 12 to 15k hours. However, we do exclusively hire out of our own flight school which was actually the first approved MPL school in the country. Entry level experience when starting the line training is probably around 80 to 100 hours real flight time and around 300 hours simulator time. And surprisingly those youngsters are eager to learn and are actually pretty good pilots. Of course raw data manual flight is encouraged in my company and visual approaches, although not allowed in our home country airports anymore, are still a common thing and enjoyed by most.