Why do we not require 1500 hours for a RHS job ?

[buzzc152]

Why have we in EASA land not followed the FAA in requiring RHS entry jobs to have a minimum of 1500 hours (or other relevant number) ?
Is it a good route for us to go down ?

[390cruise]

Avoiding any hour requirement enables Airlines to reduce crewing costs.P2F....!
So why don't we require 1500 hours because the 'name of the game' is cheap cheap cheap.
Is it a good road to go down?
No no no

[Schnowzer]

The FAA only increased the hours due to the politicians capitulation over the Colgan accident. Pretty much all, both inside and outside the FAA, wanted to go for increased demonstrated competence rather than increased hours! Sadly raising it to 1500 hours satisfied the politicians and gave the public the sound bite they needed.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Because EArseA don't care about safety, only money?

[RHS]

ALPA has teeth.

[RTO]

Schnowzer: competence today means you are willing to work for less. 1500 hrs is a whole lot better than letting the airlines play the how low can you go game.

[SpannerInTheWerks]

Judging by the recent Norwegian Air Shuttle recruitment drive it seems 1,000 hours is the minimum for them.

In the good old days it was 700 hours for a CPL and a first job required 1,000 hours after slogging through hours building by instructing or the like.

In the early 2000s easyJet required 1,500 hours on turboprops or jets - so yes 1,500 'good' hours were required.

Things have changed so much and, as we all know, pilot training has improved to the point where it is now adjudged that super Cadets with 250 hours are just as safe as those pilots who ten years ago required ten times the experience to do the same job.

[superq7]

Speaking as a passenger or pax as you call us 250 hours before becoming a co pilot on a commercial jet wow ! what if something serious goes wrong ?

Seriously wtf is going on ?

[Bealzebub]

The same as happened in the 1960's...70's...80's...90's...the naughties and the current decade!

There is nothing new about "approved" cadet pilots flying for airlines, it is simply now more evolved and much more common. Fifty years ago, pilots with this experience were flying for BEA/BOAC and other airlines.

Fifteen years ago... Twenty years ago... Thirty years ago... "non approved" candidates required at least 700 hours for a CPL/IR and were very unlikely to find an opportunity of airline employment with the jet operators until they had at least Three to Four times this level of experience.

In many cases, not a great deal has changed in that respect. JAA (later EASA) reduced the CPL hour requirements (in the UK) by two thirds to bring the levels of experience down to those required for what amounted to a basic "aerial work" licence. In so doing, it aligned those requirements to much the same as existed in the USA and other ICAO member states. The result was a flood of such low hour pilots who in many cases believed that possessing a CPL/IR by any means was their passport to the stars.

Those airlines that historically (and it is a long history,) took on low hour cadets did so through selective and managed routes. There successors in title and a whole raft of newcomers, utilized the updated version of exactly the same thing. This not only squeezed out a large portion of the "self improver" aspirants, but the new lower "non approved" CPL requirements meant there were exponentially hoards more licence holders fighting for a toe-hold on the narrowed cliff.

[SpannerInTheWerks]

How when 700 hours was required for the initial issue of a CPL?

I appreciate that ab initio cadets trained at Hamble, but how did they bridge the gap between training and the requirements of a CPL at the time?

It's a good point and one (at this time of night) I seem to be missing!

[Bealzebub]

That is easy. Because 700 hours was the minimum requirement for any non-approved course of training. Think of it as the modern day modular. The approval granted to the few schools licensed to run such "approved" courses of training for those abridged courses, required that they were restricted, selective and full time integrated. Successful completion of such an approved course allowed the licence to be issued to a graduate with around 200+ hours of flight time.

Hamble was the in-house training school for BEA/BOAC etc. until it was closed and the requirement contracted out. However there were others. Oxford, AST Perth, their successors in title, and later other new market entrants. Airlines such as Britannia (the forerunner of Thomsons) and a few others, also ran cadet programmes that utilised low hour "approved" cadets. It was always a very small section of the overall recruitment market (outside of BEA/BOAC). The majority of wider recruitment was split between military career changers and what were then termed "self improvers" the later being applicants that had worked their way up through the 700 hour requirements and often through a host of "stepping stone" jobs in order to get to the first tier airline market. It was never an easy passage, but the restricted numbers, natural attrition, and more plentiful supply (by ratio) of aerial work type jobs, meant that it was a far more realistic proposition than is often the case today.

A thread from over 11 years ago! (http://www.pprune.org/professional-pilot-training-includes-ground-studies/90150-cap-509-a.html)

[Meeb]

Spannerinthewerks, Hamble was what was called a 'CAP509' school, so cadets there attained a CPL on an approved course. The 700 hour CPL was often referred to as the Self improver' route, if an individual had not undertaken an approved course (509), they could apply for a CPL after gaining 700hrs on their PPL. All in the dim and distant past now.

[parabellum]

Did cadets from Hamble go straight to the RHS or was there any kind of restriction placed on them? I have a vague memory of talking to the SFI at the Glasgow flying club, he was a SFO on Vicounts and I got the impression that a straight from Hamble cadet wouldn't go to, for example, the BAC1-11 fleet? Could easily be wrong! I thought they started life as SOs and wouldn't be in the RHS for certain airports/weather conditions etc. A choice often not available to day with P2F.

[Denti]

So why don't we require 1500 hours because the 'name of the game' is cheap cheap cheap.

Probably for some. For others it isn't. It is more about the ability of a pilot group to stand together and negotiate from a position of power or be divided and don't stand a chance. The latter ones, regardless of hour requirements for new entries, will invariably be on the race to the bottom. The others won't necessarily.

In my company we have more than doubled our salaries since we hire MPL students with about 80 hours real world experience. Both issues are not (directly) connected, however hiring low hour cadets isn't necessarily an indication of bad conditions.

Not to mention that the 1500 hour limit wouldn't work in europe as there are simply not enough low level flying jobs for those starting out in need of those first hours, they simply would have to pay for most if not all of those hours.

[FR_A]

To be honest, I don't see what extra beneficial experience you get by flying around cessna for 1500 hours in a VFR environment. Flying a jet is totally different. But I would like to know which specific skills are gained by doing this kind of flying before flying a jet.
I work for Ryanair, which is an airline that recruits lots of cadets. There is a wind and vis limit when you are a inexperienced FO.

[nick14]

I have said this before, 1500 hours does not a good pilot make. It's the quality of training, self discipline and type of experience that makes a world of difference.

I have trained cadets with 140hrs that perform better than a FO with 3000hrs. Equally I have had the pleasure of training a ex biz jet chap (1100hrs) who's skills and SA were better than that of 10,000 hr captains!

[Skyjob]

Not to mention that the 1500 hour limit wouldn't work in europe as there are simply not enough low level flying jobs for those starting out in need of those first hours, they simply would have to pay for most if not all of those hours.

DENTI, you hit the nail on the head!

There simply would not be enough pilots available for the amount of positions on offer in airlines in EASA land if all new entrants would be required to have completed 1500 hours as (unlike FAA land) we do not have a (thriving) accessible market for building the required hours.

Imagine a new pilot with MPL having to fly ~1400 hours SE (predominantly SE as for most this is cheaper) on top of his/her training costs for the possibility to apply to his/her first job, it may take many years, requiring him/her to attend different jobs to sustain his/her hour building experience whilst losing his/her piloting skills so dearly acquired, plus in many parts of EU the weather would only allow him/her to fly such craft in less than 50% of the time...

[Globally Challenged]

The US has a huge GA industry to facilitate hour building - where do you propose that EU airlines would source crew with 1500 hours?

[microkid]

I recently conducted a study on this particular issue concerning the 1500 hour requirement introduced by the FAA and whether other states should follow.

Schnowzer is correct in saying it was certainly a political issue following the colgan air crash. Despite many studies have pointed to the fact that the accumulation of further flight hours in this way has limited value on competence, congress still pushed the ruling.

The US still prefers to adopt a rather old fashioned system of flight training and geared towards gaining flight hours. Other states appear to be more proactive towards more innovative ways to gain competence, such as the MPL. Introducing the 1500 hour rule to other states could also prove to be a problem due to the lack of GA in comparison to the US.

It has been found that flight hours alone can be of limited value, it depends what you do in those hours. For airline operations in particular, more emphasis needs to be placed on training in multi crew scenarios developing both technical & non-technical (CRM) skills in a relevant environment. This also applies to "experienced" pilots with many hours on type, they need to continually train and develop these skills otherwise further hours mean nothing. Studies have shown that pilots from airline cadet schemes with no previous experience have been just as competent as pilots with previous GA or other airline experience.

Despite the larger GA scene in US, the 1500 hour rule is still managing to create a pilot shortage for itself, mainly in the regional carriers. Therefore, it would be prudent for other states not to follow suit.

It is interesting to note, certainly in Europe and many other parts of the world, the traditional route of gaining experience flight instructing, then regional carrier, then major carrier has changed considerably. In fact, the LCC`s have become the first step, then personal choice dictates whether they want to progress to a career airline, i.e either a long haul operator or even some regional carriers that have better terms, conditions, lifestyle, seniority pay scales etc.

[parabellum]

To be honest, I don't see what extra beneficial experience you get by flying around cessna for 1500 hours in a VFR environment.

Ideally you won't be VFR all the time. You will be a qualified CPL/IR and you will fly charter around Europe, some days you will fly property developers, some days you will fly jockeys and trainers and other you will fly nice people to their holiday villa in Menorca, some will be IFR and some will be VFR. All of it you will be the pilot in command and will have to make decisions, some operational some weather and possibly a few commercial. By the time you have done that for three years you have become a well rounded pilot ready to advance to multi crew turbo props and jets.

That scenario will sound very familiar to some and totally alien to others.

[FlyingOfficerKite]

It must be the time factor also.

An approved course produces a cadet in around 18 months - it's controlled and pilot recruitment can be planned.

The non-approved self improved route is uncontrolled, unplanned and unreliable as a means of vetting and employing pilots.

The market has changed and many of the traditional employment routes are no longer available - not for the number of pilots required.

[BeCareful]

FR-A, you're not gonna be buzzing around the patch to get 1500 hours. If you do, you're probably gonna have pretty tough time passing the interview or initial training.

During those 1500 hours, you are given a chance to season, to make mistakes and scare yourself - and learn from them (called experience).

I landed my first regional airline job with over 1500 hours total time and it was to a turboprop. But prior to that, I flew skydivers, then air tours, then boxes in a larger single engine and then piston twin in all kinds of crappy weather... and then I landed in the right seat of a regional airliner.

At bare CPL, one is just dangerous enough because you know something, but you don't even realize how far behind the power curve you are because you have no depth and no real world knowledge.

Imagine your line training captain on your first flight having a stroke or heart attack or otherwise gets incapacitated... and you have 160 pax in the back, 4 cabin crew, the weather is hovering at minimums, carrying a typical minimum fuel, you have to make a decision and they're all looking at you...

... and here you are, brand new CPL with a fresh type rating, never really flew in crappy weather outside the simulator, never dealt with ATC at this level.. really, at 200 hours, what do you really know?

My point is... give new pilot time to season. You'll be doing them as well as their passengers a favor.

[FlyingStone]

Imagine your line training captain on your first flight having a stroke or heart attack or otherwise gets incapacitated... and you have 160 pax in the back, 4 cabin crew, the weather is hovering at minimums, carrying a typical minimum fuel, you have to make a decision and they're all looking at you...

... and here you are, brand new CPL with a fresh type rating, never really flew in crappy weather outside the simulator, never dealt with ATC at this level.. really, at 200 hours, what do you really know?

Most normal airlines tend to have safety pilots for FOs on their first line training - at least first couple of sectors. I also believe most people who are fresh from type rating have more trouble dealing with normal line operations (which is purpose of line training) than abnormals / emergencies, which they've practiced in simulator. If you have pilot incapacitation, most of the regular burdon for a new pilot (dealing with paperwork, different NADPs for different airports, complicated SIDs/STARs, etc. etc.) is not a concern anymore. Almost anywhere in Europe you'll get vectors to the nearest airport with a hospital close by and ambulance would be standing by...

Ideally you won't be VFR all the time. You will be a qualified CPL/IR and you will fly charter around Europe, some days you will fly property developers, some days you will fly jockeys and trainers and other you will fly nice people to their holiday villa in Menorca, some will be IFR and some will be VFR. All of it you will be the pilot in command and will have to make decisions, some operational some weather and possibly a few commercial. By the time you have done that for three years you have become a well rounded pilot ready to advance to multi crew turbo props and jets.

I don't know in which Europe do you live, but there are much more jet jobs than GA jobs (the one that actually pay you enough to be able to afford food) for a typical 200h CPL/ME/IR holder.

[TypeIV]

The problem nowadays is that after a decade of political green power movement insanity, very few GA opportunities remains. Air taxi is pretty much dead since the costs have gone through the roof.

Closure of minor airfields, imposing tax on avgas, making licensing, handling permissions, buraeucracy in generally has killed the whole GA-scene in Europe. The regional operators are now under the wings of larger carriers and even middle eastern owners, the good ole days when "hangar-Joe" let you fly for food is long gone.

Together with an explosion in new license holders selling their mothers for 10hrs of SEP the scenarios wished for in this thread are not possible anymore, without going to Africa or buying hours in the USA. I'm not very fond of the idea where fresh CPL-holders starts to instruct right after obtaining a license.

Ideally pilots would start off in the military, fly 10-15 different types of aircraft, get a phd in aeronatical engineering, enroll in the space-program and do some laps around earth outside the atmosphere, earn a Nobel prize and then goto the RHS of a turbo prop in the sahara and climb the MTOW-ladder once every 5000hrs and retire in a flag carrier but the reality doesn't allow this.

Imagine your line training captain on your first flight having a stroke or heart attack or otherwise gets incapacitated... and you have 160 pax in the back, 4 cabin crew, the weather is hovering at minimums, carrying a typical minimum fuel, you have to make a decision and they're all looking at you...


This is why you have a safety pilot for several weeks on the jump seat and you practice incapacitations dozens of times and you keep a good eye on the wx on the enroute alternates.

... and here you are, brand new CPL with a fresh type rating, never really flew in crappy weather outside the simulator, never dealt with ATC at this level.. really, at 200 hours, what do you really know?

You never flew in severe icing, 35kt gusty Xwinds or 200m of visibility in the C150 either. And if you did you should definately not be flying again :}

I disagree with that two years of farting around in the C150 would make a world of a difference when it comes to the quality of candidates.

Training and proper selection is much more important in my opinion.

[Denti]

This is why you have a safety pilot for several weeks on the jump seat and you practice incapacitations dozens of times and you keep a good eye on the wx on the enroute alternates

The first few days are usually enough for correctly trained cadets, and they are only released to fly without safety after a incapacitation flight, a flight where the instructor and the safety play dead after gear up and the rest of the flight is done single hand by the cadet.

As said above, the usual MPL cadet probably has less of a problem with any non normal than with flying a normal uneventful line sector. He did nothing else for the last 200 hours in the simulator, simulating all the usual non normals and all the non normal situations that actually happened on the line up to proficiency.

Unlike the US airlines in europe have a lot of experience with low hour cadets. That is all they had for the last 60 or 70 years. Airline run cadet schemes were the norm, not the exception. At least for the legacy carriers.

[Stage5]

As said above, the usual MPL cadet probably has less of a problem with any non normal than with flying a normal uneventful line sector. He did nothing else for the last 200 hours in the simulator, simulating all the usual non normals and all the non normal situations that actually happened on the line up to proficiency.

In a way that is true. Whilst hopefully well versed in the theory and limited practice of 'Threat and Error Management' they have never really had the opportunity to experience boredom in the flight deck and complacency from imaginative rostering practices.

That said my limited solo hours during the CPL/IR were of equally limited use. Not too boring and not too exciting and still too fresh to become complacent in my new surroundings. That happened around the 1000-1500 hour mark. Thought I knew sh1t. Turned out I didn't know as much as I thought. Lesson learnt.

Would 1500 hours work in Europe? Well if you want to commute (we have no interline deadheading policies as exist in the US, or incredibly few as to have the same effect) and use 'crash pads' and wait on tables for a second job then ok, bring it in. The regionals would love to start a 'B' pay scale I have no doubt at all. At the end of the day either route will still lead line Captains to assume their responsibilities to develop the First Officers under their charge. Sadly some skippers don't see that as a competency they should exhibit and demonstrate and instead bemoan training departments et al. Captains abound, but good Captains (leaders) do exist. Faith is still alive and well.

Now when does the F1 in Austin start??

[RAT 5]

and they are only released to fly without safety after a incapacitation flight, a flight where the instructor and the safety play dead after gear up and the rest of the flight is done single hand by the cadet.

What a wonderful world. Dream on baby. If the XAA's imposed such an edict then bravo, but that is not the case. Now try a real scenario as imposed by some airlines. CAT 3 approach is planned & briefed. During approach the captain goes awol. F/O make G/A as per SOPs' and diverts as solo crew. Every where is socked in and not a lot of fuel due to minimum fuel + a teaspoonful policy. Divert to alternate that is CAT 1 + a bit. Interesting scenario, but was it tested? I doubt it. Winter's coming.

[172_driver]

I am from one of the few countries that still has a fully state sponsored airline pilot program (I am disregarding the military for the sake of argument). For long I thought it was insanity, considering the saturated market and waste of tax payers' money. Now I have changed my mind. Speaking to colleagues from all corners of Europe that weren't so fortunate and now sit with up to €200 000 worth of bank loan, I see how rotten this business is from airline level down to flight schools. In the UK the big schools (Oxford, CTC) have oligopoly and the modular route is dead. All over Europe schools are preaching about the massive growth that's awaiting us and thousands of pilots are needed. There are local shortages, but never a shortage of cadets. Poor people's dream is being exploited by banks, airlines, flight schools. If they're lucky to find a job after finishing training, declining T&C makes it ever more difficult to pay back. In the mean time they will struggle to settle down, buy a house, build a family etc.

With inflated training costs it's become a rich man's hobby. Every profession goes at a price, the equilibrium where people say "enough, i am not paying this money for the prospect of earning peanuts" is not reached yet. And hardly will it change in this deregulated aviation business? Too many kids with dreams. That's where I am coming back to my new opinion. I think it's criminal (read: morally wrong) to trick people into a dream world, which turns into a nightmare. A free-market proponent will likely disagree with me here. But with people having limited rationality I believe a regulated training market is the best option and what should be pushed for on a political level. This would hopefully result in the best candidates for the job, with a healthy infusion of cadets into the market and stop devaluation of experienced pilots already out there.

[Piltdown Man]

What exactly is the value of 1,500 hours? It is only a number. The 1,500 hour limitation applied in the US was a token and totally pointless gesture dreamt up by a muppet in the FAA following the Colgan crash. It was not balls on the part of ALPA. And the accident itself had absolutely nothing to do with a lack of experience. Training was one of the factors but the mostly likely reason was tiredness directly resulting from the dreadful rest conditions this crew was forced to endure because their pay was so dreadful.

To improve safety, you have to have properly trained and motivated crews with appropriate experience who are carefully selected and then properly paid. And experience is not a number. And what I mean by this is that an MPL student might have have a better experience level at 250 hours than someone who has spent 1,500 hours beating a path around a circuit in a Cessna 150. Speaking for myself, I'm perfectly happy flying with an F/O fresh out of flying school. They fly well, are technically good and even when things go badly, they come up to the mark.

The biggest threats we have are the 'dreamers' who will fly for nothing, the public who never ask why flying is so cheap and the regulators who never ask about an airline's Ts & Cs. But to be reasonable, why should the greedy half witted civil servants in EarseA who know nothing about aviation give a damn? As long as they get their pensions then all is well.

[RAT 5]

The biggest threats we have are the public who never ask why flying is so cheap and the regulators who never ask about an airline's Ts & Cs. But to be reasonable, why should the greedy half witted civil servants in EarseA who know nothing about aviation give a damn? As long as they get their pensions then all is well.

The travelling public have blind faith. They've been told for years that flying is the safest method of transport. They've been told for years that the various XAA's have only their interest & safety at heart. They have been seduced by all that. Now it is even cheaper than ever; the price of oil is % times more expensive than not so long ago; the landing fees & en-route charges are higher; inflation has been in effect for years and yet ticket prices are lower. Clothes are cheaper because they are made in China; food is cheaper. Flying is cheaper, but its costs are at EU prices. How is that possible? They never ask but climb on board with blind faith. It's time they asked the question.

[EMB-145LR]

I fly for a US regional. Honestly, the 1,500 hour rule has done nothing but create an artificial shortage. The quality of the guys we have coming through is no better than it was when 250 hours was the minimum requirement; in many cases it's worse. We have a lot of older new hires at my airline who have come looking to start a second career in their late 40s. They have spent years flying around in their own single engine or multi engine piston aircraft, picking up awful habits and learning nothing new or of merit. Some of what I have seen in the sim is down right terrifying. Many argue with instructors over technique, trying to apply various practices used on single engine props to a 38 tonne jet. I have seen this first hand several times.

Would I like to see a 1,500 hour requirement introduced in Europe? Yes! But only because of my own selfish desire to return to the UK to fly. I find the reliance on cadets in Britain most disheartening. I've been trying to get home for 5 years now. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Virgin follow BA's lead and continue to take a variety of backgrounds, and not just cadets.

[Big Pistons Forever]

It has been found that flight hours alone can be of limited value,


Possibly true but one fact can't be changed. You can't simulate or train the experience you gain in the 1500 hours, experience that by definition a 250 hr wannabe won't have.....

[RedBullGaveMeWings]

How would the 1500 hours work in Europe? Where and how could we reach this magic number in terms of flying hours?
And once again, where in Europe? Not for free, please...

[blind pew]

HAMBLE...BEA/BOAC
The corporations had totally different agendas with cadets in the 70s.
BEA put them straight into the RHS with a mentality that we were system operators...the accident rate was appalling and there was a recommendation in the Lane report (Papa India) re the advisability of putting a 225 hour cadet into a modern jet airliner.
BOAC required the Hamsters to take a Nav ticket...they were then qualified as a third pilot with "restrictions". Eventually (3-4 years?) they became P2 with the aircraft in part 1.
The part 1 requirement was made in the 60s after BOAC realized that accidents could have been prevented if the first officers had been "more forceful" and by having a mini command course this would help change the mentality - which it did.
The accident rates speaks for the success or otherwise of the different approaches although there were several other factors; as always one has to look at the management and the atmosphere created by them.

[Superpilot]

Guys, time to accept reality for what it is. As European pilots we have been forced to fly all over the world due to our airlines having an addiction to an ever growing supply of young, unadulterated (often very cheap) labour willing to take on €150,000 debt, at the expense of hiring experienced pilots. Through this frustration we are bringing ideas to the table that incorporate the best of what we’ve seen outside Europe. However, there’s only so much that can ever be applied over here.

A 1,500 minimum requirement is not the answer. As alluded to above, we don’t have much GA due to horrendous fuel costs and highly bureaucratic “regulators” who are from the same family as Nigerian email scamsters. You can also argue that we don’t have the same geographic and public transport challenges as they do in North/South America to make it possible for pilots to build up 1,500 hours prior to piloting a commercial airliner.

We are all frustrated because we cannot get jobs at home despite being born, raised, educated and having paid through our noses in taxes and fees (licensing) in the very lands we call home. We had the belief that by accumulating a few thousand hours abroad we’d have recruitment departments giving our applications preference. Instead they give priority to those who like debts – lots of it. There are some people out there operating within the upper echelons of pilot recruitment departments that believe pilots who trained according to their own (modular) system and were not pre-selected, are totally unemployable regardless of their abilities (some of these people frequent these forums). With such attitudes we are never going to get anywhere.

Imagine for one minute that you as a fair minded guy got into a position where you could recruit pilots according to your own principles. How long would you last in that position after airline management make the discovery that you seem to be hiring pilots in their 30s and 40s who have a genuine requirement for a reasonable and stable income whilst not being shafted at a months’ notice? It would take one bean counter to do the calculations and present them to the board. Most business men don't care about anything other than bottom line and where sustainability is concerned, airline bosses know that the pilot supply vs. demand gradient in Europe will always be in their favour. It’s the nature of the beast, capitalism at its best.

[Mikehotel152]

There is no simple solution to this dilemma. Water will find it's way to trickle downhill through any cracks and fissures it can find. By which I mean that the airlines are under pressure in this capitalist world to make profit for their shareholders. Accordingly, safety is a primary concern insofar as the avoidance of accidents is extremely important, because an accident is more expensive to an airline operation than a raft of safety measures.

Meanwhile, if a bean-counter can strip away levels of safety without effecting the accident statistics, they will. Sadly, statistics only reveal events, not close run things or accumulated danger caused by tears in the fabric of the safety nets. What the Colgan crash highlighted is that there are many bad practices in the industry - from commuting to a lack of manual flying skills - which have been allowed to imbed themselves in modern aviation because it reduces airline operating costs.

Would a 1500 minimum hours help? It's hard to say because it's an artificial restriction on recruitment that has never existed before. In the 'old days' demand for pilots was so much lower and was satisfied by corporate, GA and military sources. Those sources have all but dried up and demands are sky-high.

In order for a 1500 hours limit to work in a positive way rather than simply lead to an influx of pilots with cessna time, you would have to restructure the whole industry. That isn't going to happen. Ergo, in the real word it's far more practical to ensure that the cadets joining with 200 hours are properly vetted, trained and supervised while they earn this 1500 hours experience in the airline environment. As has been proven by those 'damned' statistics, cadets, per se, are not a safety risk if carefully and competently integrated into an airline operation.

[blind pew]

There are some people out there operating within the upper echelons of pilot recruitment departments that believe pilots who trained according to their own (modular) system and were not pre-selected, are totally unemployable regardless of their abilities (some of these people frequent these forums). With such attitudes we are never going to get anywhere.
I recently attended a presentation of one of these "stars".
An excellent speaker although somewhat along the lines of the shopping channel until he presented a slide which,IIRC, pictured a hippy, a young man in a 1950s midshipman's uniform and a bloke with his hands in his pockets - a self improver....the rhetorical question was "who would you chose to employ".
That is when he lost me.....where he was wrong and based his prejudices upon his own training...which started with an odd ball degree which had nothing to do with aviation and probably at a sponsored commercial course followed by a loco training department or two.
Having been one of these Midshipman stars...flown with those who were recruited after obtaining a degree and thought a career in aviation was better than working....and instructed many who just wanted to fly - he is 100% wrong ...those who haven't had a silver spoon, in one form or other, and have struggled to fly generally put the extra effort in throughout their career.
One only has to look at 447...and the professionals couldn't even be bother to rest before the flight let alone take the trouble to understand the aircraft systems.

[Smokie]

Good post blind pew :D

[AdamFrisch]

Because airlines run Europe. They set the airspace like they want (like the silliness of class A to the ground etc) and they run how certification is done. There is no real GA in Europe. A new CPL can't build time anywhere, so the airlines set what suits them best - and that is underpaid apprenticeships in the form of MCL, cadets etc.

Only in Europe do you get guys time and time again that are ex-military to run the Civil Aviation Authority. They're just company men, looking out for them and the big boys only. Even the new GA department at CAA is run by an ex-mil. Is it any wonder?

[blind pew]

Adam you forgot the old boys network...

[Cliff Secord]

I think the question here is of keeping the career as a career. The current situation is a road that will dwindle into a track. It's getting to a point that whatever company you head for as a cadet, that's your lot as once you become experienced you won't be able to move as companies take only cadets. Sure, at the min there is still small amounts of experienced recruitment but you have to bare in mind how much the recruitment situation has changed in 10 years. It's not beyond the wit of man that it will be cadet only per company in the not to distant. Regulators think its safe, employers love the cheapness and the fact you can start a cadet on 25k.

As a discussion of safety, whilst incap events in Europe for a straight out of training and line checked 250 hour guy can be assisted by ATC, it's another thing if it happens on a wide body heading to Africa at night, middle of Siberia or over the Indian Ocean on poor HF and no cpdlc com. I do think there is a case for international ops over sparce areas or dodgy parts to require a mix of quality airline hours and a strong training background.

A CTC guy out of line training has had what, a brief 40 hour rating and LST on top of basic training. We all know you only get to do things briefly on type ratings. Maybe incap was covered once or twice, briefly on rto, 80kts and perhaps a line flight scenario on a short UK sector in the sim As for safety pilot for weeks, ha, well I've seen it for more like 2-3 days of line flying. The basic training on the twin is all IFR procedures, not really actual airline style , more light aircraft things -vac pump failures, radios blinking a bit and OEI approaches. An experienced line pilot WITH a good training background has in say 10 years of flying, additionally been exposed to say 20-30 recurrents and all the experience of picking things up and advice up along the way and has seen a lot of real stuff happen. That's when it's time to set sail over remote lands to crap holes in the middle of the night.

[FlyingStone]

As a discussion of safety, whilst incap events in Europe for a straight out of training and line checked 250 hour guy can be assisted by ATC, it's another thing if it happens on a wide body heading to Africa at night, middle of Siberia or over the Indian Ocean on poor HF and no cpdlc com. I do think there is a case for international ops over sparce areas or dodgy parts to require a mix of quality airline hours and a strong training background.

How many airlines put guys with 250 hours on long haul? And if they do, how many pilot incapacitations they've had on these routes in the last two decades? And how many of them ended up tragically? They certainly aren't LCCs you mention (between the lines) in the first paragraph.

Personally, I think you have to adapt to 3rd world operations regardless if you have 250 hours and a wet-ink licence or you have been flying for 1500 hours in Europe with babysitting radar-equipped ATC and ILS-to-ILS routes in a brand new aircraft that never breaks down.

[Rick777]

1500 hours is far from a hard number in the US. There are a lot of exceptions for people going through approved training programs or military. I don't have any data, but would guess that most young people interested in being a professional pilot would be going through one of these programs.

[Chris the Robot]

I think the answer to the OPs question is that aviation regulation isn't always very forward thinking, regulatory changes often are made only after an event has occurred. Over here, we have yet to see a fatal incident involving a low-hour F/O who has paid for the training themselves.

That said, one would think that the Kos incident back in 2006 would have really given the regulators something to think about. Incidentally none of the three safety recommendations from the AAIB report into the Kos incident concerned pilot selection, despite the fact the F/O had failed simulator assessments which formed the selection process for his training. Despite my only flying being in the world of gliding, it seems to me that the key problem here of pilot selection based on ability to pay as opposed to ability to fly was missed.

[RAT 5]

Chris: please refresh my memory about Kos.

[tubby linton]

Air Accidents Investigation: Download PDF document (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Airbus%20A320,%20G-DHJZ%2012-08.pdf)

[sapperkenno]

So he failed his CPL twice, IR 3 times, had control taken from him on 9 landings out of 28 that he'd flown on the Airbus...
Obviously got "the right stuff" that airlines looks for these days, which has nothing to do with flying skill and prowess, but passing fancy selection tests which bear little relevance to flying, and the ability to pay for 150 hours of flying an Airbus. The sort of person the military would probably "bin", but who is able to keep paying in the civil world, with the end result being a grounded aeroplane.
Fantastic.

[Smokie]

Hmmmmm.... Very interesting reading that one.
Just wondering how far out on a (MPL) trip, that a similar scenario wont be re-visted again?

[Jetpipe.]

Sapperkenno, bang on!
Its not about having cadets in the flightdeck, its about having people with the ''right stuff'' which is pretty basic if you ask me.. Its alright to fail a checkride if there was a good reason behind it but when you see this guy's history this is unacceptable..
Bottomline: If you have the money you get the job no matter what.

An other threat I 've noticed, is that while 99% of the people usually are totally fine to fly with there is that 1% that are complete or partially psychos in the flightdeck. I never had any psychological check before or during my brief career so far, but I wonder if it wouldn't be a bit safer to have one. Though I know some airlines do a full personality check, I know for sure that many others don't. A bit off track maybe but I find it relevant..

[Chris the Robot]

I think one of the concerns with the MPL is that the majority of schemes which I have seen involve Airbus types. Whilst I don't want to debate Airbus vs. Boeing etc. I believe that the PNF cannot "feel" the control inputs of the PF, indeed from what I'm aware pilots can make contradictory inputs which cancel each other out unless the "takeover" button is pressed.

Once or twice in a K13 glider, the instructor said that I overcontrolled slightly, he could feel the control inputs I was making and hence something that could have otherwise become a bad habit was resolved early in training.

I think the significance of this is that since a lot of the MPL training is done in Airbus simulators, it must surely be difficult for an instructor to spot minor concerns early in training which could become significant over time. Slightly worrying when the airline can only pick from a narrow demographic of applicants (those who can fund the training) if you ask me.

[Smokie]

Wrt Psychometric and more importantly Psychological testing and analysis, I had taken these for 2 different airlines a few years apart and totally independent. I asked for a copy of the results on both occasions, as I was actually entitled to in those days and was amazed to find that they were virtually a mirror image of each others results. I was very pleasantly surprised that, that particular system actually worked.

[galaxy flyer]

Don't forget, the FAA rule is an Airline Transport Pilot license, not 1,500 hours. Doesn't seem wrong to require airline pilots to have and AIRLINE Transport Pilot license to me. And a shortage of pilots doesn't hurt T&Cs like having marginal, PTF, guys off the street.

[Cliff Secord]

How many airlines put guys with 250 hours on long haul? And if they do, how many pilot incapacitations they've had on these routes in the last two decades? And how many of them ended up tragically? They certainly aren't LCCs you mention (between the lines) in the first paragraph.

I didn't say there were any. Fair enough. I'm not banging the safe drum. They clearly think its safe. Just a point for a case I felt worth minor consideration. Anyway the main point I have always felt is trying to keep this as a career. It will be a career of sorts but will change rapidly I think in the next 10 years. Pay will stay the same, inflation will go up. More akin to a current 25-30k job. The command value will shrink, train drivers on freight earn 45k basic. It'll happen to command salaries. Why shouldnt it? There's not much to actually keep value, no safety issue, no supply problem. As mentioned the old days are history. There's no reason why VAA shouldn't recruit cadets as prime candidates and just top up with instant coffee trained pilots when short or expanding. It's annoying but what can you do.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I read the KOS report and one line in blew me away. When on the line flying his IOE flights the Co -Pilot had to be cautioned to look up and not continue to fly the Flight Director bars below 200 feet AGL. :ugh:

I don't think you will ever see a similar observation for someone with 1500 hrs who is starting his IOE.

This is what you get with straight out of the Sim Children of the Magenta :rolleyes:

[deptrai]

There have been various private medical colleges, operating for profit, based in 3rd world countries, promising to accept virtually anyone, and turn students into medical doctors for a hefty fee. They tend to get shut down sooner or later, and their graduates find it impossible to get their credentials accepted. I'm not a fan of excessive bureaucracy, but maybe a little more oversight for pilot training would not hurt. Also...maybe some public funding for serious training institutions? Akin to public universities that train professionals like medical doctors, dentists, etc. A public university in Norway has a pilot training program, a 3 year degree, including "frozen" ATPL etc (but much less than 1500h). It's essentially free for participants, and there's scholarships to cover cost of living, yet selection is rigorous. I've yet to hear that these graduates have big problems finding a job....and I'd venture a guess that after rigorous selection, most of them have the "right stuff". A high quality subsidized training program, like some flag carriers' cadet training, military aviation, or this public university, can attract and select students that have "the right stuff", early on. This is vastly different from commercial schools that profit from accepting almost everyone, essentially postponing selection.

[RAT 5]

Ref: 1500hrs in a 2 crew jet.
Having watched programs about Bush flying in Botswana, Ice pilots in Alaska, Air Susi in Indonesia I wonder about this argument. In these theatres of operation the 'blind faith' flying public, and in the case of Botswana in particular some of them are very wealthy, climb aboard a single engine single crew a/c. The chappie up front might have anything from 250-800hrs. Nice new shiny licences in the hands of hour builders. Their learning curve must be steep beyond belief. In the case of Susi Air it was frightening to watch sometimes.
In a word I think the 1500hr rule might be a diversion away from the root cause of the real problem and a sop to various lobbies.
In teaching TQ's we are constantly looking for the root cause of a mis-handled manoeuvre. That is what we focus on. In the case of many incidents/accidents a 1500hr threshold would not have solved the root cause.
I have a much greater concern about the lack of experience in LHS at 1st command, where too much reliance is placed upon SOP's, high class ATC environment, fully hi-tech airports and ultra reliable machinery to keep the newbie captain safe. In my experience the problems I had to deal with and solve rarely came with an answer in QRH. The real challenge was preventing matters ever becoming a problem in the first place. I wonder if 4 years concentrated up/down round the houses of EU is enough.

[cockney steve]

A chap I know, from a highly privileged background, took up flying as a hobby....
Looking for challenges led him to an IMC and Night ratings.......he decided to try for a Commercial licence, not because he wanted to fly shiny jets, but simply to improve himself.
AFAIK, the school concerned was North Lincoln/Southeast Yorkshire based, They boasted a very high success rate.
SIMPLY BECAUSE PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS WERE RIGOROUSLY SELECTED ON ABILITY TO PERFORM.

Needless to say, he qualified. He was adamant that all the cash in the world would not have bought a place on that course....(OTOH, if you couldn't raise the finance, you couldn't join.)
Like him, all students should do their research and weed out the the sausage-machine enterprises who'se driving criteria is "can you pay"
Yes, he wound up instructing to build hours. also did pleasure-flights for a bit of fun and aerial photography. To that particular person,commercial flying is just a sideline. He used to keep a tail-dragger to play in. a good, safe Pilot,who has natural ability.

[pilotchute]

You can put it any way you want but Ryan an Ezy and many others have proved that you can take a 200 hour person and put them in a jet and 3-5 years later upgrade them to Captain and the planes don't fall out of the sky.

The damage is already irreversible.

[angelorange]

Depends what you mean by experience.

If training is the foundation, experience is the building. How high the building can go depends on the depth of the foundation (eg: Military or MPL) and quality of the construction (later flying).

AF447 was not pilot incapacitation. Two Integrated route pilots up front and a bleary eyed Captain arrived after the stall warner had given up.

AF32: How many 1000h up front of that A380?


Colgan 3407: Captain had low hours on joining and paid to fly B1900 in previous "job" and failed many flight/sim tests. FO had minimal I/F and night time.


RE: EU LoCos:

See www.chirp.co.uk/downloads/ATFB/ATFB101.pdf

Another link to Kos:

Uncorrected poor technique led trainee to land A320 hard - 12/12/2008 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uncorrected-poor-technique-led-trainee-to-land-a320-320070/)

[RAT 5]

many others have proved that you can take a 200 hour person and put them in a jet and 3-5 years later upgrade them to Captain and the planes don't fall out of the sky.

on an ideal day. I agree. This debate is now coming full circle as I once again assert that the pax expect the chappie in LHS with the gold suit and blue rings will extricate them from the poo when unforeseen circumstances dump them in said poo; and further they expect same said gold ringed chappie to avoid putting them in the poo in the first place, should and ideal perfect day not arise.
All the hi-tech wonders of the modern aviation environment and the most comprehensive SOP's will only get you so far. Often the rest is up to your good self and what nouse you may have; if any.

However, I do, reluctantly and with heavy heart, have to accede to you final point:

The damage is already irreversible.

On here this topic will return ad infinitum and reman ever circular disappearing up its own APU. Only after more smoking holes will anyone pay heed.

[Blantoon]

On an ideal day?

The 200hr cadet -> 5 year captain archetype has ALREADY flown untold hundreds of thousands of sectors across the years with their fair share of engine failures, smoke/fire events, hydraulic failures, airport closures with minimum fuel and horrible weather, unreliable speed events.. etc etc.

Stop acting like they are yet to be tested. They have been, over and over, and they perform admirably.

[Squealing Pig]

5 year captain archetype has ALREADY flown untold hundreds of thousands of sectors across the years with their fair share of engine failures, smoke/fire events, hydraulic failures, airport closures with minimum fuel and horrible weather, unreliable speed events.. etc etc.

Thats one unlucky captain, All that in just 5 years!

[Blantoon]

I presume you're using a literal interpretation to make a joke :ok:, but just in case you aren't (or other people don't get it) I am of course talking about all ex-cadet Captains, hence the word archetype.

[Three Lions]

Blantoon, a couple of serious serious questions, noting your angle on several threads

Can you not see any negative points to employing a disproportionate percentage of debted new hires?

Thinking with a bigger picture in mind (as a pose to from inside a me-me-me bubble) do you think employing a disproportionate percentage of debted new hires adversely affects terms/conditions for all, potentially industry wide whilst also creating a two tier industry that penalises experience?

All things considered, is it healthy for anybody - other than management and the shareholders of the "large fto" - to have so many debted new hires gushing into the bottom of the career pyramid when there are both experienced guys available, and guys with more experience/substantially less debt from differing training backgrounds that actually tend to perform no differently on type and line training?

[Blantoon]

Three Lions, I'm refuting a completely unjustified point made about safety. I didn't mention anything about T&Cs, in this thread nor, as far as I recall, others.

As for your "me-me-me bubble" comment. I'm going to assume that was a unfortunately chosen turn of phrase, and you weren't implying anything.

[Smokie]

I think Three Lions hit the nail well and truly on the head.

[Denti]

Quite hontestly, he hasn't. There might be something about low hour, low paid or even pay to fly cadets, forced to work as fake contractors that doesn't sit right. And yes, it does put pressure on conditions elsewhere. But they are not the only ones to blame, there is a much larger portion to those pilots already in the company when it all started watching it happen without doing anything.

And then there are those companies that have always taken in cadets as their main source of new pilots and have some of the best conditions out there, the likes of lufthansa, KLM and so on, and even some second tier airlines that have in fact increased their conditions considerably despite taking in only or mainly low hour pilots or even running their own cadet program, despite those new pilots being in debt.

There is no correlation between experience and conditions. There is not even a correlation between experience and safety. However there is a very strong correlation between selection, training environment and both conditions and safety.

[Proline21]

There is alot of Pay to Fly bashing going on in this forum and many are very hard with your comments regards to "paying for experience" but forcing pilots to complete 1500 hrs on their own before they land their first job is not a problem? Flying in Europe is significantly more expensive than in the USA and with rates from 120 to 150 EUR an hour for a C172 it is impossible to gain hours that way.

Instructing or dropping Skydivers - fine, if you can get such a job!

Apart from that I don't see any good reason why fresh cadets cannot be trained properly and be in the right seat of an Airliner with around 250 hrs.

Many respected Airlines in Europe like Lufthansa, Air Berlin, KLM, Condor, Luxair, Austrian, Swiss, etc do it that way for ages so why not.

[RedBullGaveMeWings]

Not only that. Carriers may still ask for hours on type despite the 1500 hour rule if it were to be introduced. And there we go again, prerequisites would be to have at least 1500 TT to get on the RHS of an airliner in a P2F scheme.

The system in Europe is broken. I am lucky enough to be in the process to obtain the right to live and work in Canada and I hope everything will be fine. I think I will forget about Europe for quite a while in the upcoming years...

It's all about ethics and respect for your job. In North America pilots prevented all this from happening to such a large scale as it has happened here in Europe. Low hour pilots really have no other alternatives to make it in the airline industry in Europe because hours on type seems to be the key to at least be called for a selection and interview.

[McNugget]

"It's all about ethics and respect for your job. In North America pilots prevented all this from happening to such a large scale as it has happened here in Europe."

Are you joking? Have you seen the conditions at regional operators in the US?

All of this admiration of the 1500 rule is pure hot air. It's done nothing but kicked the can down the road. The competence level is the same, the compensation, if anything, is worse than before, and the the calibre of regional pilot remains the same.

UPS, SWA & US all lost hulls last year. Mercifully only 2 fatalities amongst them. These were pure competence issues, completely mismanaged by some of the most experienced flight crews around.

It's all about training.

[RedBullGaveMeWings]

At least in the US pilots don't pay to fly...

[McNugget]

They do, only on a (thankfully) much smaller scale.

[Superpilot]

And they magically happen to build hours up twice as fast as us (Dual P1 in a spamcan). When I went over in 2007 for a spot of hour building, I couldn't believe it when a local guy asked if he could join me, share the costs so we could both log P1.

[TheBigD]

Superpilot,
In our FAR's it is perfectly legal to do so (I think its under 61.51 from what I remember); as long as that pilot was acting as safety pilot and you had a view limiting device on during that time. Most log only a few hours that way (50 -100); but that is still hundreds of hours away from the hour requirement for an ATP. The way the majority of us civilian guys met the requirements for an ATP was via the old fashioned way - instructing.

[RedBullGaveMeWings]

@TheBigD, isn't the old fashioned way still in place in the US?

[Cliff Secord]

1500 hours being useful at making you a better pilot is highly questionable in my opinion. Flying GA for 1500 hours might, just might make make you a better GA pilot but could make you worse and you'd be no better at airline ops for it I'd argue. It's not like you have 6 monthly sim checks and line checks in GA. 1500 hours regional TP flying is a different pot of tea, as that's handling practice on a large complex aircraft, exposure to emergencies, descision making and SOPs all in 1500 hours compared to flying to Northern France VFR for a sandwich in a light aircraft.

I think where hours is only useful is keeping a pecking order that assists progression. A better way was the old way, basic CPL/IR for short haul, build up some hours and jet time to allow you to apply for anything long haul. Not for any safety reason, just keeps the flow. It's stopped now though.

[RAT 5]

I think where hours is only useful is keeping a pecking order that assists progression. A better way was the old way, basic CPL/IR for short haul, build up some hours and jet time to allow you to apply for anything long haul. Not for any safety reason, just keeps the flow. It's stopped now though.

Not sure I follow completely your train of thought. Some moons ago I was kicking a B767, or was it a B757, around the Greek islands. IFR but very VMC and do your own thing type of flying. In the days when guests were allowed I had a B747 TRE from a fellow company on the jump seat. (He had to go on holiday some where and was slumming it with us.) He really enjoyed watching the operation and all that it involved and entailed. I was doing 30 sectors a month with one end such places and home base a multi rwy ILS'd nest. He was doing 8 sectors a month all into ILS nests. He was also a senior honcho in the national union. The union still had the dinosaurian idea that bigger meant more dosh. As a TRE my salary was 1/2 his. Who earned the crust more? He also admitted that B747 was a doddle to fly. There was a station manager at both ends to make all the commercial decisions. All he to do was get it off the ground and back on again. He thought our days were more fun. I asked him to discuss the merits of the union philosophy about salaries. Stunned silence.
Back to the thread. I don't agree you need more experience to be F/O on long-haul. I suggest that the multi-sector short-haul environment has PM working far harder, and might more often need an authoritative advocacy input than the minimum long-haul drone on & drone on type of 3 crew flying.
The thing is: 1500hrs for a RHS jet job is not a solution to cure the problem. It's the quality of the flying you did before you climb aboard your first airliner. These days are gone, but I was so lucky to end up in a B732 via 5 years of single engine GA flying, Biz-jet, Biz-twin prop, single crew twin prop air taxi, crop spraying: Only then did I sprout epaulets. and I felt very green, but hell I learnt fast.

As someone has said before, the new world is irreversible; true, but purely 1500hrs ain't the answer to all the woe's. It depends on the quality of those 1500hrs. If there has been quality training; and there in lies the rub/debate, 250hrs of focused training can be enough with the right person. 1500hrs with the wrong person still doesn't cut it.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

I was exceptionally lucky. I was sponsored through the CAP509 programme in the early 1980's, arrived with shiny frozen ATPL at base training and after three weeks ground school and a very stiff exam found myself in the RHS of a twin jet sim with a highly experienced P1 converting to type in the LHS.


The highly experienced P1 and the rest of the training team cajoled, caressed and kicked me through the training, then followed circuits at Prestwick, stamp on license before line training.


I had a PPL before starting so was in the RHS of an Airbus with 402 hours TT. I did 20 sectors with a safety pilot on the jump seat, another thirty with a line trainer and then was signed off with the caveat "no auto-lands until trained at first VBC/IBC." 200 hundred hours later I landed the beast alone after the P1 was knocked out by a silly accident down the back.


15 000 hours later I know now what I didn't know then, and I'm still learning fast, and all of my colleagues from the CAP509 course are all senior captains somewhere.


I've looked at the current integrated courses, and while the graduates seem very young they are steeped from day one in the SOP's of the company they are being trained by. They arrive at the base training stage thoroughly knowledgeable about how their company works, then it is a question of learning to fly the aircraft properly, and that skill applies to newcomers and to highly experienced pilots.


Talking recently with the head of training at a large European LoCo I asked about the MPL, and was surprised at the good results his company has achieved with it. And in that case the flying is less than 100 hours with a huge concentration on simulators.


A couple of hundred hours to the RHS of a 200 seat jet may not seem much, but in my view it depends on how that 200 hours is used and how the culture of airmanship is taught as well as how the new pilot is put through his base and line training and up-grades that follow. Where I currently work we require 1 500 hours for a P2 and I'm not sure that is necessarily the best way to go, I'd rather recruit off an assessment of abilities, but then the insurance premiums would go up a long way.

[angelorange]

Experience is not about how many hours you attended classes or how long you spent on the john.

Time is just a marker - as in a musical composition. Without time there is no history or future.

Leaving the Military trainees (who actually have more like 300 to 400 hours flight time over a couple of years before they reach the front line but can cope solo in close formation, I/F, deal with realistic simulated emergencies in real aeroplanes, in real time (no pausing SIMs), in less flying hours than the MPL), Lufthansa and maybe pre 2012 BA cadets out of this, the current civilian low hours to RHS of a jet Airliner route is not the answer to the huge drop (according to both Boeing and Airbus) in piloting skills and the corresponding rise over the past 14 years in LOCI events.

First off the biggest issue with civilian training is the student is the paying customer and is milked for as much $$$ as the FTO can justifiably extract. As such, less than ideal candidates will pass to minimum EASA standards under idealised conditions. Put more emphasis on SIM time and less real flying makes this even more controllable. Insisting on SOPs alone does not build airmanship or resilience to unusual/ real flying events.

The students comment " but it doesn't fly like the simulator!"

GA and the Airlines and indeed the Military could do more to learn from each other instead of working in isolation.

GA could do with more pilot mentoring and take what is good from Airline SOPs and Military emergency handling techniques to improve flight safety. It would then be a more consistent breeding ground for new aviators and provide opportunities for apprenticeship like schemes such as gliding, instructing, Biz Av etc....

Sadly some Airlines in the EU have slashed their in house training depts, sub-let their staff training to 3rd party FTOs and their hiring to non aviation minded HR companies. Now "self employed"/3rd party Flexi / temporary contract labour is more commonplace.

Such 6 monthly placements are no place for continuity of learning. Replacing staff frequently reduces worker commitment and quality.

Training alone is not going to fix this problem. Practice still makes perfect whether an ice skater or pianist. But where are the opportunities for practice? Even if not self funded, where did Bonin get his high altitude handling skills? 10,000h on automation in an A320/330?

How many of Captain Lee Kang Guk's 9,793 hours of flying experience were actively engaged in directing and understanding the flight path and energy state of a B777? Especially when the average flight time would have been around 5 hours per sortie?

Compare that to an Alaskan Q400 or Susi Air pilot who is working their way up a very long 1500h ladder.

Pyramid schemes fail for a reason and it's the inversion of the Egyptian builders structure to put more on top of less. The traditionally built Pyramids (deeper and broader foundations) tend to last a fair bit lot longer!

[Big Pistons Forever]

T
Many respected Airlines in Europe like Lufthansa, Air Berlin, KLM, Condor, Luxair, Austrian, Swiss, etc do it that way for ages so why not.

For the last 15 or so years the lowest accident rate per 100,000 hours of flying has been recorded by North American mainline airlines. The average new hire to the RHS has 4000 + hrs and will probably come from a regional jet, or corporate jet command position. This is for an initial hire so to say that an European airline puppy mill 200 hr new hire is in any way comparable to that of a typical North American new hire is laughable.

That been said the legacy European carriers have had a long history of success with in house cadet programs. However the key difference is that those legacy carriers ran their own cadet programs. Since the airline was paying the freight for all the training they culled all the less than exceptional cadets and so the product was of a uniformly high quality.

Now of course the airlines are sourcing all their new hires from third party airline puppy mills. Now money not ability is what matters, something that works for the bean counters but will inevitably end badly......

[space pig]

indeed. Money can buy you the typerating and get you the job, but money can't buy you the experience

[aa73]

I think it was mentioned earlier in the thread but I'll repeat it...

Having a minimum of 1500hrs is a benefit to the industry due to the simple fact that 1500hr pilots will be a lot less willing to work for crap wages, vs 200hr noobs that just want a foot on the door and will whore themselves out.

As a result, when you hear the words "pilot shortage" here in the US, management will tearfully tell you it's due to the "ridiculous" 1500hr minimum. But the truth is that the shortage is due to less and less pilots willing to work for the crap wages those airlines start them at: A quick search will reveal that the US has thousands of ATP-qualified 1500hr pilots that are not working for airlines, so there is no shortage of them. They simply do not want to put up with the low starting wages.

As far as experience? I agree with the statement that hours do not necessarily equate to better performance... If those 1500hrs are all done flying C152s vs someone else flying night freight in a beat up twin, there's a huge difference. But overall, my opinion is that the 1500hr minimum serves as a decent experience "net" that gives us a good percentage of experience in the right seat...while not all 1500hr pilots will have 1500 quality hours, most will. (at least here in the US due to lots of different time building options.)

I have always had reservations about the MPL and low time cadets in the right seat...that's just me, maybe I'm old fashioned and believe 200hr cadets have no business piloting an airliner, but I'm a firm believer that airliner duty comes only after one pays their dues with experience and getting the crap scared out of them more than a few times while building time on their own... Transporting passengers in airliners is the pinnacle of the profession and should only come after a thorough seasoning. IMHO

[AdamFrisch]

Nail on the head aa73.

There is no shortage of pilots in the US, there is only a shortage of ATP's willing to sit RHS in an rotten Brasilia earning $18K a year. Interestingly, since the new ATP training rules in August got implemented, not a single US ATP program has started, not a single ATP has been certified having gone through the new programs. So, sooner or later these bottom feeding commuter airlines are either going to have to pay up, or shut down.

Any business that relies on slave wages and over supply as a business model, doesn't deserve to survive. Good riddance.

[RAT 5]

Curious that one answer to what ever problems happen to be flavour of the month is to insist on more hours in RHS of large a/c. Then why has the EU CPL syllabus been reduced from, in my day 250hrs, to the current 148? That's 40% less aviating, less scaring yourself getting lost of nav ex's, less cross wind landings, less single pilot IFR training, less handling, less decision making less..less..

Why, if the answer now seems to be more, have the authorities allowed less at the very foundation phase? Is that too simplistic? I think not.

I still think there has been a risk assessment process whereby the authorities, in cahoots with the airlines, have decided that the rise in reliability of ATC, airfield systems = more ILS & radar, a/c technology, robust SOP's etc. will allow 150hr cadets in RHS. Those airlines that choose this 'cheap route' to training its pilots, generally have such an intense flying roster that after 1 year the cadets have been blooded enough, and survived, and hopefully learnt enough. (yet still there is a 30% CU failure rate). The other airlines, with more extensive in-house training, can tailor their crews to fit their own model and feed them in gently.
Part of this risk assessment process did not allow for total cockpit experience levels. Yes there are restrictions on F/O's <500hrs being teamed with low hour captains. However, with captains at 3000hrs I would consider them low houred until, perhaps 1000hrs LHS. That would be 18 months, commonly.
What restriction does your airline employ? If the raw cadet is going to embark on a steep learning curve it should be only with sufficient experience in LHS that they can be mentored and learn as an apprentice. Just think about apprenticeship schemes in other industries; they sure don't put them with some newbie. Blind leading the blind is not ideal in this world.

[ChaseIt]

Cadets, great with the books... Useless with hands on skill

[FRying]

"Why do we not require ?" ????

Simply because you and all european pilots and unions have not deemed interesting to fight for such a clause or others. And even if european unions were appealed to unleash a battle in favor of it, most pilots, wimps as they are, would twist and turn their mental posture in order to justify their refusal to follow up on the unions' action.

The pilots' population has turned into some sort of helpless squid ready to be globbled down by the last little shark who, they feel, will let them get their poor little hands on a jet. That's why you all need to prepare to pay a high price for your coardice. Get ready to get poorer and poorer. Just for the sake of avoiding the fight. Good thing we're not talking about actual war, you'd be laying down your weapons prior to any declaration of war.

Sorry for being so abrupt but that's all this population is about. And that's what has made me quit this profession. I'm so much happier now and sorry for all those little bums fighting for a banana peel.

Good luck. That's about all you can rely on from now. And a strong health, I forgot...

[trancada70]

FRying is right !:mad:

[IcePack]

So True FRYing.

[Greenlights]

Frying, I could not say it better...

Pilots uniform allow them to hide under a shell like a snail. Strongs shoulders outside, weak courage inside unfortunately.

[Denti]

As i said above, the strength of a pilot group has nothing to do with the employ of cadets or only so called experienced pilots. It has a lot more to do with the ability to stand their ground and do that together.

In my outfit, where we do hire only our homegrown MPL cadets for the last few years, it was mainly the FOs who carried the unionization and had the strength to force the company to accept much better T&Cs, including a strong scope clause. Despite the extremely bad economical situation of the company in question we managed to raise salaries by yearly double digit percentages, simply because our pilots had the strength to stand their ground against our management. Not to mention the likes of Lufthansa of course, who hire mainly cadets (MPL since it was approved in germany) for the last 60+ years and enjoy a pretty good package.

It is not about entry experience, it is much more about state of mind. And running away usually doesn't help in the fight.

[RAT 5]

I have always had reservations about the MPL and low time cadets in the right seat...that's just me, maybe I'm old fashioned and believe 200hr cadets have no business piloting an airliner, but I'm a firm believer that airliner duty comes only after one pays their dues with experience and getting the crap scared out of them more than a few times while building time on their own... Transporting passengers in airliners is the pinnacle of the profession and should only come after a thorough seasoning. IMHO

Yes & no. I agree that a 2nd officer is an apprentice. I still consider the 1st year salaries for raw cadets are too high. It leads to some unhealthy attitudes and also unhealthy motivations for being there in the 1st place. Ignoring the cost of reaching the RHS, because it is not a level playing file for everyone, I argue that the rewards in 1st year are not yet merited by the experience available. The big bucks will arrive sooner than most other professions. Patience and some humility, hm.
However, to the point above. It can be argued that the safety level of a modern MPA jet, both technically, SOP=wise and the environment of their operations, does allow cadets of suitable quality to be there. If you force them to go via the regional T.P's to hour build then I argue this can be is less safe for the pax. The environment at lower level is much more hazardous; the SOP's might be less in-depth and evolved; the captains can be less experienced and thus less able to teach the new apprentice; perhaps even less capable and rejected by the majors; the a/c have less performance to help you out of the poo; the company less financially secure with all the associated consequences; etc. etc. There are places, both with the equipment and environment, where I consider the experience level up front to be woefully too low and the risk factor way too high. This is a factor of the lower salaries. i.e. low experience = low salaries caused by less pax on small a/c. I once asked an operator of F27 flying London area to Europe why their fares were so much higher than the major from LHR. Reply was 50 pax versus 180. You paid for the journey; simple. The salaries of the pilots was 1/2 of the big jet jockeys. After a few years their experience was very relevant to their environment, but the 1st couple of years had a high learning curve with hopefully no hurtful problems and they all survived. There are places in our world where they are not so lucky on the regionals. I'm amazed at the blind faith of pax who climb aboard these things; even including to the cadet hour builders in the Safari parks of Africa. A 206 full of CEO's piloted by some one they wouldn't hire as their chauffeur. Hm?

[YLpilot]

Before Colgan air accident in the US it was also possible to fly for Part 121 airlines right after flight school ?

[Aso]

So let me take the bait: Colgan Air crashed because the captain ( with 3379 hours) and the first officer (with 2244 hours) completely mishandled the flight. Reason in the NTSB report

Fatigue: Long commute, short sleep, long days work
Captain (repeatedly!!) difficulty passing check rides
a failure to follow rules barring nonwork conversations in the cockpit
inadequate training for emergencies specially stalls
Oh and the FO felt sick on the day of the flight but felt since she had travelled so far already

So there was a great report on how to make the industry safe....

Unfortunately the families and congress are not good at reading and think more is better so instead of pushing improvements in training through they want more hours :*:*

Let me ask you the following: when you want a heart surgeon operating on you do you want
A) a doctor who has trained to be specifically a heart surgeon at a great medical university who has done 25 operations
B) a doctor who has just made it through his training at a local medical school that is ok but just that and has done 100s of operations making stitches on people who fell down etc

That is the problem with 1500 hours: IT IS ALL ABOUT THE QUALITY OF TRAINING not the number of hours!! I have flown with 20.000 hour guys who where crap :suspect:

[calypso]

And yet the 20000 hour guys where even worse when they had 200 hours and the brilliant 200 hour guys will be even better when they have 10000.
The choice here is not between brilliant low hour guys and terrible high hour guys. The choice is between a cross section of abilities with 200 hours or 1500 hours. At all abilities pilots will be much better when they have gained some experience. Full stop. I have over 10000 hours and yet every day I still learn something and therefore every day I am a little better. To deny that is just arrogance, understandable on the young but unforgivable on a regulator.

[Future Rodney King]

I read the KOS report and one line in blew me away. When on the line flying his IOE flights the Co -Pilot had to be cautioned to look up and not continue to fly the Flight Director bars below 200 feet AGL. :ugh:

I don't think you will ever see a similar observation for someone with 1500 hrs who is starting his IOE.

This is what you get with straight out of the Sim Children of the Magenta :rolleyes:

Observed a hell of a lot of the time, most FO’s these days are transfixed on the flight directors all the way down.

[oceancrosser]

And yet, apparently an american pilot with probably far more than 1500hrs did this yesterday in his Line Training... hundreds of low hour pilots have been trained on exactly this type without these consequences.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/715x511/ua757ewr_af2dc6ef180fa57ff5728b0f738e2c3b62dea904.png

[flyfan]

The thing is: European aviation is different to American aviation. I wouldn't have minded (in fact: would have liked) to start my career on small Bizjet like a Citation, or doing Medevac, FI etc - BUT these hours are logged for nothing over here, as nearly every airline wants time on at least MTOW >10t. So going the bizjet/medevac route, you're basically stuck in this sector (happened to a friend of mine). FI? Well, nice to have, but is nearly useless for getting an airline job for the same reasons.

Therefor basically the only chance you have, is joining an airline right out of flightschool, which is, imho, not a good way to do it.



Observed a hell of a lot of the time, most FO’s these days are transfixed on the flight directors all the way down.


One reason why I love NPAs - "Disconnecting, recycle FDs please..." ;)

[Banana Joe]

I hate the F/D. Unless I strictly need them (low ceiling, strong crosswind or gusts) or at night with some approach lights inop I fly raw data. And when I leave it on, I still tend to fly through them...

[harrryw]

It seems to me that having people do extended time in GA etc has one main effect....it allows the pilot to know what scared is and hopeful he becomes a more aware pilot because of this.
Studies seem to show that low hour cadets when tested fit within the range of acceptible standard though probably at the lower end. A bad pilot is still an unsafe pilot whether he has 20000 hours. A supervised SO with low hours is probably still safer.\ than him.

[bafanguy]

European aviation is different to American aviation. I wouldn't have minded to start my career on small Bizjet like a Citation, or doing Medevac, BUT these hours are logged for nothing over here, as nearly every airline wants time on at least MTOW >10t. So going the bizjet/medevac route, you're basically stuck in this sector.

flyfan,

I am not particularly interested in "debating" which system produces better pilots (it's one of those subjects not worth debating since people are inclined to defend what they already think) but do try to understand them without too much judgement. How does one explain a system of pilot supply/demand that devalues experience like "bizjet/medevac route" ? Many biz jets are very sophisticated machines providing quite relevant, valuable experience to an airline environment.

[VariablePitchP]

I hate the F/D. Unless I strictly need them (low ceiling, strong crosswind or gusts) or at night with some approach lights inop I fly raw data. And when I leave it on, I still tend to fly through them...

That SOP, seems a bit off-piste?

Seems to be a lot of stigma about people using flight directors, bit of raw data now and again is fun but if flight directors were really that bad they wouldn’t exist...

I’m on the pro-200 hour pilot side. To get someone into an airline fresh out of training is when the knowledge is still there and the skills taught are the sharpest. Whilst I’m sure 1500 hours of towing ‘Happy 50th Margaret’ banners gets you very familiar with VFR ops in a 172, please don’t try and say it makes you a much better multi crew airline pilot. Better at weather avoidance, maybe. Better at R/T, arguably, let’s be honest that’s about it.

[172_driver]

I’m on the pro-200 hour pilot side. To get someone into an airline fresh out of training is when the knowledge is still there and the skills taught are the sharpest. Whilst I’m sure 1500 hours of towing ‘Happy 50th Margaret’ banners gets you very familiar with VFR ops in a 172, please don’t try and say it makes you a much better multi crew airline pilot. Better at weather avoidance, maybe. Better at R/T, arguably, let’s be honest that’s about it.

My skills were definitely sharpest after about 1500 hrs instructing VFR maneuvers, Instrument Rating and Multi-Engine work. Then I quit instructing, joined an airline and realized the hand-eye coordination, the workload management it was all the same game. You were still a newbie on the line, you had to adjust to new work patterns, "you didn't see it coming" as clearly.. Pure flying, is transferable. Being a system operator, a chimp could do.

[Banana Joe]

I just feel that relying too much on F/D weakens my scanning skills. I try to fly a raw data approach at least a couple of times a week if I can.

I'm on the pro-200 hour pilot side, too. I am one of them.

[Busdriver01]

Can’t speak for Boeing (though I assume it’s the same) but on the bus, either you nail the flight directors, or you turn them off. Flying through the flight directors may be ok in roll, but will lead you into all sorts of trouble in pitch with the auto thrust engaged.

[Banana Joe]

Might be the same on 777/787, but on all other Boeing products when you fly manually you turn the A/T off. Or switch Speed off and leave it armed for low speed protection but I've never seen anyone doing it.

[FlyingStone]

I hate the F/D. Unless I strictly need them (low ceiling, strong crosswind or gusts) or at night with some approach lights inop I fly raw data. And when I leave it on, I still tend to fly through them...

Recommend reading the FCTM on Boeing's opinion about not following flight directors. But the manual is probably written for us mere mortals, not for the Chuck Yeagers of the sky.

[Banana Joe]

I read it, I switch it off when I think the situation doesn't require it. I did not say I don't follow it if it's left on, I said I have an initial tendency of flying through the FD because I keep scanning what my LOC and GS are telling me. And on departure and climb out I set a pitch attitude that gives me the performance I desire and eventually the FD centers.

​​​​

[Ollie Onion]

The 1500 hour rule is a joke. Go back and read the Coglan accident report that led to this new rule. By far the biggest contributor to this accident was the Fatigue the crew were experiencing, the Captain had a questionable training record but lots of hours, the FO had loads of hours. Both were tired, yawning down the approach due to having to deadhead into work, sleep on the Crewroom couch as they couldn’t afford to live in their base city. A far better response to this incident would have been better flight time limitations and a mandated minimum award for airline pilots including needing to be paid enough to live locally. Sure it would put pressure on costs and airfares but we have allowed the workers to suffer in a never ending quest to reduce costs. The easy option out was to put this arbitrary hour limit in place that has no perceivable safety benefit as you still get pilots with a bad training record in the left and right seat with thousands of hours.

[4runner]

The US has a huge GA industry to facilitate hour building - where do you propose that EU airlines would source crew with 1500 hours?

stop taxing and regulating yourselves out of GA. Flight instructing is a fantastic way of achieving experience. You’re essentially a Captain early in your career, you actually practice the knowledge that you learned, you learn to work with a variety of personalities in the cockpit, you learn leadership and decision making and time management skills. It’s too bad that Europe ruined GA, but it’s your bed, you lay in it. I’ve flown with 755 hour P2F cadets. They didn’t pay their dues through instructing, they didn’t interview for their “job” and they have a sense of accomplishment for accomplishing nothing that was earned. Obviously, this stereotype doesn’t apply to all folks who went through a P2F program, but it certainly is not the desired path. Additionally, people from this low time background were the quickest to criticize and tell you how it was done at their previous “job” and how much better it was. If it was so good there, why didn’t they hire you or why didn’t you start after your paid “internship”?

[bafanguy]

...where do you propose that EU airlines would source crew with 1500 hours?

GC,

Good question. flyfan indicated in an earlier post that EU airlines aren't interested in people who just might have 1500 hours but in a non-airline industry sector. Have to say I don't understand the mindset:

"European aviation is different to American aviation. I wouldn't have minded (in fact: would have liked) to start my career on small Bizjet like a Citation, or doing Medevac, FI etc - BUT these hours are logged for nothing over here, as nearly every airline wants time on at least MTOW >10t. So going the bizjet/medevac route, you're basically stuck in this sector (happened to a friend of mine). FI? Well, nice to have, but is nearly useless for getting an airline job for the same reasons."

[petrichor]

To the original question?

Because Joe Public only want to pay $10 for his ticket to fly across Europe.
Because aircraft manufacturers build aircraft for the "lowest common denominator" with cockpit and aircraft systems that only need a 200hr pilot to push and pull knobs when the systems work (until they don't).
Because airlines cut costs to meet this new demand citing these safe aircraft and easy to manage systems.
Because airline training facilities create the MPL to provide the "pushers and pullers".
Because airlines apply pressure to Regulatory Authorities to reduce experience levels.
Because Regulatory Authorities are either a) in the airlines' pockets or b) too **** scared to lose their position/jobs, therefore agree to everything the airlines demand.

Et Voila......we have a system where cost drives safety as opposed to the other way around and Mr $ Mrs JP get to go on a holiday to Magaloof that they would otherwise would not normally be able to afford.

What astounds me about today's approach to aviation, is that this is still a dangerous business (improvements acknowledged, as are comparisons to crossing the road, juggling with knives etc etc), many people die at a single stroke when the Swiss Cheese model comes into full effect. This is why aviation should be expensive, because safety requires and comes at a significant cost. So why oh why has this fundamental fact been glossed over? Because of costs (greed). The cost of safety has now been practically eliminated to allow a flawed concept to run and this is why, BUXXC152, in my opinion we have 200hr cadets in the RHS in Europe and now most of the cockpits in other parts of the world.

Immense unfair and undue pressure is now placed on Captains, whether they be newbies, experienced or trainers. The recent 737 Max events may well be the catalyst that highlight to the public and the industry the catastrophic consequences of cutting costs in every area of aviation and in doing so, creating a swiss cheese model with more holes than cheese.

Rant over...

[cumulustratus]

To the original question?

Because Joe Public only want to pay $10 for his ticket to fly across Europe.
Because aircraft manufacturers build aircraft for the "lowest common denominator" with cockpit and aircraft systems that only need a 200hr pilot to push and pull knobs when the systems work (until they don't).
Because airlines cut costs to meet this new demand citing these safe aircraft and easy to manage systems.
Because airline training facilities create the MPL to provide the "pushers and pullers".
Because airlines apply pressure to Regulatory Authorities to reduce experience levels.
Because Regulatory Authorities are either a) in the airlines' pockets or b) too **** scared to lose their position/jobs, therefore agree to everything the airlines demand.

Et Voila......we have a system where cost drives safety as opposed to the other way around and Mr $ Mrs JP get to go on a holiday to Magaloof that they would otherwise would not normally be able to afford.

What astounds me about today's approach to aviation, is that this is still a dangerous business (improvements acknowledged, as are comparisons to crossing the road, juggling with knives etc etc), many people die at a single stroke when the Swiss Cheese model comes into full effect. This is why aviation should be expensive, because safety requires and comes at a significant cost. So why oh why has this fundamental fact been glossed over? Because of costs (greed). The cost of safety has now been practically eliminated to allow a flawed concept to run and this is why, BUXXC152, in my opinion we have 200hr cadets in the RHS in Europe and now most of the cockpits in other parts of the world.

Immense unfair and undue pressure is now placed on Captains, whether they be newbies, experienced or trainers. The recent 737 Max events may well be the catalyst that highlight to the public and the industry the catastrophic consequences of cutting costs in every area of aviation and in doing so, creating a swiss cheese model with more holes than cheese.

Rant over...

:D

This needs to be shared with journalists. A very good summary of what's gone wrong since the deregulation of the EU aviation sector.

[Officer Kite]

Forgive me, but didn't the largest aviation crash in history happen before deregulation with the environment being exactly the utopia that you describe? Caused by a crew with an infinite amount of hours and everything else you list? Of what use were all of those things? And that's only one example of how unjustified all this wishful thinking is

[Rarife]

Forgive me, but didn't the largest aviation crash in history happen before deregulation with the environment being exactly the utopia that you describe? Caused by a crew with an infinite amount of hours and everything else you list? Of what use were all of those things? And that's only one example of how unjustified all this wishful thinking is

No, that is not possible. I guess you mean Tenerife. That was clearly because the cap had not enough hours on Cessna in GA. Otherwise he would not need any stupid clearance and easily managed to jump over that Pan Am and manualy flown to AMS as VFR. Because that is how real pros do that.

[cumulustratus]

Forgive me, but didn't the largest aviation crash in history happen before deregulation with the environment being exactly the utopia that you describe? Caused by a crew with an infinite amount of hours and everything else you list? Of what use were all of those things? And that's only one example of how unjustified all this wishful thinking is

So you believe that the introduction of healthy crm philosophies in the flight deck is a direct substitute for the things listed above? If you don't, then why bring it up?

[Vessbot]

Just maybe, there is more than one possible cause for an accident, and therefore the poor CRM of Tenerife is a separate issue from the poor hand flying experience of today's beginners?

​​​

[Officer Kite]

Just maybe, there is more than one possible cause for an accident, and therefore the poor CRM of Tenerife is a separate issue from the poor hand flying experience of today's beginners?

​​​

Poor hand flying experience? You will find some of thousands of hours can have poorer skills than someone of low hours, that's just humans

Was the guy who planted the 757 into Newark 2 days back low houred?

[Banana Joe]

He was in IOE or whatever they call it across the bond. It's what we call line training. He was not low houred, but new to the airline. He probably had some experience on regional jets.

[Officer Kite]

He was in IOE or whatever they call it across the bond. It's what we call line training. He was not low houred, but new to the airline. He probably had some experience on regional jets.

Exactly my point

[Vessbot]

Poor hand flying experience? You will find some of thousands of hours can have poorer skills than someone of low hours, that's just humans

I agree.
Was the guy who planted the 757 into Newark 2 days back low houred?

Dunno. Maybe he had a lot of time. Maybe all of it, save 30 seconds per leg, was AP on. Who knows?
​
My point is that Tenerife's CRM issue can coexist with today's hand flying experience issue, so the former does not contradict the latter. (Not staking a claim about the truth of the hand flying issue, just that it's not contradicted by Tenerife and that its truth or falsity can only be established in unrelated ways.)

Like, imagine for example that we're in a world with a recent rash of high profile fuel exhaustion crashes. And someone saying that that can't be an issue because look at Tenerife where they were very well fueled.

[Aso]

Quote:Originally Posted by Officer Kite https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.pprune.org/terms-endearment/550464-why-do-we-not-require-1500-hours-rhs-job-6.html#post10496559)Forgive me, but didn't the largest aviation crash in history happen before deregulation with the environment being exactly the utopia that you describe? Caused by a crew with an infinite amount of hours and everything else you list? Of what use were all of those things? And that's only one example of how unjustified all this wishful thinking isNo, that is not possible. I guess you mean Tenerife. That was clearly because the cap had not enough hours on Cessna in GA. Otherwise he would not need any stupid clearance and easily managed to jump over that Pan Am and manualy flown to AMS as VFR. Because that is how real pros do that.

Spot on: IT IS ALL ABOUT TRAINING AND QUALITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL NOT HOURS...

Sorry I had to shout but I feel that the P of Professional of Pprune could be removed again :}

[Jeffory]

Is the 1,500 hour rule not just to reduce the supply pool of suitable pilots desperate for a job and willing to work for rubbish terms and conditions? Hence forcing regionals to pay more than a fast food worker? Meaning pilots aren't travelling cross country to start their tour?

I tend to agree that hours mean very little. It is down to the individual and standard of training.

[dr dre]

Flight instructing is a fantastic way of achieving experience. You’re essentially a Captain early in your career, you actually practice the knowledge that you learned, you learn to work with a variety of personalities in the cockpit, you learn leadership and decision making and time management skills. It’s too bad that Europe ruined GA, but it’s your bed, you lay in it. I’ve flown with 755 hour P2F cadets. They didn’t pay their dues through instructing, they didn’t interview for their “job” and they have a sense of accomplishment for accomplishing nothing that was earned.

“Didn’t pay their dues”?

“Didn’t interview for the job”?

”Accomplished nothing”?

What a load of it. Seriously you Americans have zero clue about how aviation works outside of your borders don’t you? You’re probably shocked that in the other 200+ countries in the world aircraft get off ground without US pilots behind the controls.

Having experienced both, I’ll take a thoroughly vetted, well trained Euro style ab initio pilot any day over a 1500hr US style wonder who’s “experience” is watching amateurs do circuits in CAVOK weather and has had no proper screening or training for an airline job.

[pineteam]

I think it’s a bit sad to start immediately after school on an airliner as a young pilot. It’s not very challenging and as fun as flying in the bush for example with twin old pistons from the 60th/70th or Cessna Caravan where you land on place you won’t even believe it’s a runway. It really builds your confidence. Flying on your own with basically no rule, multiple different aircraft at the same time, with no paperwork whatsoever except the techlog and no QAR was kinda dangerous, but as a young pilot it’s so much fun. I’m flying Airbus for 5 years now and I really love it. Don’t get me wrong, there are other challenges and satisfaction but I do miss sometimes the freedom of real flying, single crew operation and adrenaline that you never get in airliner.

Saying that I fly with a lot of guys who only flew ATR or Jet before and most of them are very good pilots. For a safety point of view I don’t think it’s an issue as long as they are properly trained and their company allows them to fly raw data.

[dr dre]

I think it’s a bit sad to start immediately after school on an airliner as a young pilot. It’s not very challenging and as fun as flying in the bush for example with twin old pistons from the 60th/70th or Cessna Caravan where you land on place you won’t even believe it’s a runway. It really builds your confidence. Flying on your own with basically no rule, multiple different aircraft at the same time, with no paperwork whatsoever except the techlog and no QAR was kinda dangerous, but as a young pilot it’s so much fun.

And it's also dangerous. Plenty of pilots have lost their lives in light aircraft bush flying. We shouldn't expect new pilots to do that in order to get an airline job. Not everyone wanting to be a pilot desires an "adrenaline rush". Some are more attracted to the advantages of flying airliners than light bush aircraft. If they do want an adrenaline rush take up skydiving or bungee jumping.


Saying that I fly with a lot of guys who only flew ATR or Jet before and most of them are very good pilots. For a safety point of view I don’t think it’s an issue as long as they are properly trained


So what's the problem then.

[pineteam]

So what's the problem then.

No problem. It’s just sad IMHO. Flying only shinny metallic Jet your all carrier does not sound that exciting. People who become “pilots” just for the life style are not pilots. Sorry.

[JPJP]

a 1500hr US style wonder who’s “experience” is watching amateurs do circuits in CAVOK weather and has had no proper screening or training for an airline job.


Since that’s not the way it works - I doubt you’ve “experienced both”. They are are both screened, and then they’re further trained. In addition to their previous experience.

Many EVA Suits from new hires previous jobs hanging in your training center ? No ? Thought not.

[Callsign Kilo]

There are crap pilots at 1500 hrs and greater. There are very astute ones with merely 200. It’s about their training and ability, both technically and non technically. This varies widely from FTOs, ATOs through to airlines. You could place a 5000 hour limit and achieve the same results. A futile argument.

[Banana Joe]

I think it’s a bit sad to start immediately after school on an airliner as a young pilot. It’s not very challenging and as fun as flying in the bush for example with twin old pistons from the 60th/70th or Cessna Caravan where you land on place you won’t even believe it’s a runway. It really builds your confidence. Flying on your own with basically no rule, multiple different aircraft at the same time, with no paperwork whatsoever except the techlog and no QAR was kinda dangerous, but as a young pilot it’s so much fun. I’m flying Airbus for 5 years now and I really love it. Don’t get me wrong, there are other challenges and satisfaction but I do miss sometimes the freedom of real flying, single crew operation and adrenaline that you never get in airliner.

Saying that I fly with a lot of guys who only flew ATR or Jet before and most of them are very good pilots. For a safety point of view I don’t think it’s an issue as long as they are properly trained and their company allows them to fly raw data.







Now please tell me where a European pilot can do bush flying in Europe? My ears are wide open to listen to your guidance.

[pineteam]

Now please tell me where a European pilot can do bush flying in Europe? My ears are wide open to listen to your guidance.

You pack your bag and you go job hunting in Africa like I did. Easy right?

[Banana Joe]

You pack your bag and you go job hunting in Africa like I did. Easy right?It is not as easy as you are making it sound. Over the last few years, several African countries' authorities have, rightly so, increased the minimum requirements for foreigners. The bare minimum at the moment seems to be 500 hours and a FI rating is a big advantage. The average graduate in Europe still needs to find a way to log 300 hours to be eligible to qualify for any position.

However, Susi Air remains a viable option. You can apply and go through the selection with less 250 hours but those are required to start.

[pineteam]

Hello Banana Joe,

This is very true. It’s much more difficult nowdays. It was already not that easy 10 years ago.
I’m not pointing fingers at pilots jumping straight on Jet. If my first job was on a 737 or 320, I would take it immediately. But I had the chance to do something else and I’m glad I did it and would recommend any new fellow pilots not to rush on airliners as it’s pretty cool and satisfying to do different kinds of flying.

[Busdriver01]

I find it absurd that people think everyone who wants to be an airline pilot should move to Africa or Southeast Asia first to “pay their dues”. Some will and they will enjoy it but for the majority of people that is just not desirable at all. Since GA in Europe isn’t what it is in the states, there are few options left. Thankfully, airlines in Europe are geared up to train cadets, and they do this very well.

I did my basic flying training in New Zealand, and came back to the UK to do my IR, but it was possible to have trained in America with the same company. My IR instructor (ex Air Force, long career in airlines after his service) made his views on those who trained in the states quite clear - as has been mentioned above, how much extra do you actually learn from spending 1500 hours in CAVOK conditions before moving to a regional? (because flying for a European LOCO in a 320/737 isn’t exactly any different from flying a regional carrier in the states)

[Trossie]

I knew someone once who had taken two years hard slog (while still working to keep himself and his family going) to gain his licence with 200 hrs. He had a 'rejection letter' from an airline saying "apply again when you have 1,000 hrs". He replied by saying that he had just spent a lot of money and time to gain his licence and was now at 'peak performance' and how could he be seen to be 'better' if he went to the USA to hire a cheap C150 to burn holes in the sky for another 800 hrs? He was invited for an interview and got the job. And was amongst the best pilots I have flown with. But I have flown with "200 hrs wiz-kids" off full time courses who could not think for themselves and flew like 'machines'.

Hours alone mean absolutely nothing. The 1,500 hr requirement in the USA is absolutely nonsense. But then it was imposed by politicians, who are clueless on any aviation matters (as the EASA FTLs prove so clearly).

[sheppey]

and their company allows them to fly raw data.

And that is one key to pure flying skill. The vast majority of airline operators in all parts of Asia are so wedded to flight directors that is practically a Mayday situation if the crew are forced to fall back on raw data. In a Middle East airline when the QAR revealed that one captain switched off his flight director to keep his hand in on a fully visual CAVOK climb, he was fined by the airline.

[cucuotto]

Saying flight hours don't count is bull****. I regularly fly with 300/500 hours FO who just paid their way into the right seat with no screening at all . They are a disaster under all point of view to the extent that also a cpt incapacitation would most probably end into one.. Pilots needs to have the required skills and to build a database and they get the the first by genes and the second by experience.. Putting paying morons that sholud not be anywhere close to an aircraft and that later accept peanuts as a salary in the right seat which in turns jeopardize the life of hundreds of passengers while they refine skills that they don't have is not acceptable. Cadetship should be only allowed if fully sponsored by the airline and if the airline has a proper screening and training organization and minor operator should not get an ATO just by thinking boxes. P2F must end before is too late. Normally the best have FI or GA expérience . It used to be the standard and it has to go back to that .

[cessnapete]

Cucuotto
Rubbish, it's the lack of screening and training that counts, not 1500 hours in for example GA.
British Airways and several European airlines, Easyjet for example, have recruited 250 + hours cadets into the RHS of A320 and similar etc. for decades with no problem.
Proper screening prior to training for ALTP, Type Rating and extensive route training with Training Capts.
All RHS co-pilots with BA are trained from the start of Route Traiing for two pilot ops.
What Airline do you fly for which allows such ill equipped co-pilots on public transport flights?
Do you not have any feedback to your obviously poor training set up?
I'd like to avoid that company!!

[Banana Joe]

Saying flight hours don't count is bull****. I regularly fly with 300/500 hours FO who just paid their way into the right seat with no screening at all . They are a disaster under all point of view to the extent that also a cpt incapacitation would most probably end into one.. Pilots needs to have the required skills and to build a database and they get the the first by genes and the second by experience.. Putting paying morons that sholud not be anywhere close to an aircraft and that later accept peanuts as a salary in the right seat which in turns jeopardize the life of hundreds of passengers while they refine skills that they don't have is not acceptable. Cadetship should be only allowed if fully sponsored by the airline and if the airline has a proper screening and training organization and minor operator should not get an ATO just by thinking boxes. P2F must end before is too late. Normally the best have FI or GA expérience . It used to be the standard and it has to go back to that .
The problem lies with your employer(s) then.*

[cucuotto]

The problem lies with your employer(s) then.*
Do you know how many employer like this are there around in EU? Beside mayor Easy and Ryan the rest is down to this.

[cucuotto]

Cucuotto
Rubbish, it's the lack of screening and training that counts, not 1500 hours in for example GA.
British Airways and several European airlines, Easyjet for example, have recruited 250 + hours cadets into the RHS of A320 and similar etc. for decades with no problem.
Proper screening prior to training for ALTP, Type Rating and extensive route training with Training Capts.
All RHS co-pilots with BA are trained from the start of Route Traiing for two pilot ops.
What Airline do you fly for which allows such ill equipped co-pilots on public transport flights?
Do you not have any feedback to your obviously poor training set up?
I'd like to avoid that company!!
That is exactly what I said. Cadet programs only for established and proven training organization with high selection standard. Unfortunately there is an underworld of smaller outfit whose main business is putting people that should never be in a cockpit..in a cockpit...for cash.

[gearlever]

Cucuotto
Rubbish, it's the lack of screening and training that counts, not 1500 hours in for example GA.
British Airways and several European airlines, Easyjet for example, have recruited 250 + hours cadets into the RHS of A320 and similar etc. for decades with no problem.
Proper screening prior to training for ALTP, Type Rating and extensive route training with Training Capts.
All RHS co-pilots with BA are trained from the start of Route Traiing for two pilot ops.
What Airline do you fly for which allows such ill equipped co-pilots on public transport flights?
Do you not have any feedback to your obviously poor training set up?
I'd like to avoid that company!!

Spot on, you nailed it:ok:

[the_stranger]

You pack your bag and you go job hunting in Africa like I did. Easy right?
Fun fact: in my country, flying in the bush in Africa, will drastically decrease the chance of getting a job at an airline when you get back.
When applying for a airline job, your background is checked and any (recent) years in a country with less than decent administration will result in a gap in your whereabouts, causing you to fail the background check and therefore make you ineligible for the job.
Few years ago this was a big problem with guys flying in Indonesië, I Imagine Africa would be even worse.

Besides that, how many jobs are there in the bush? I am guessing not enough, by far, to give every future airline pilot that experience, besides the point that, in my part of the world, you can spend up to 100.000 euro for training, which the bank really wants back when you are earning next to nothing flying medicin to a village.

[cucuotto]

Spot on, you nailed it:ok:
​​​​​Spot on.Well there are hanffull of mayor and low cost that have the capability to select and train.The rest is pay to fly. Show me the cash..you get the seat. It is a wide spread system in the enlarged EU. Someone should start putting poles. The FO in Indonesia was P2F....