Are the minimum hours in the right hand seat dropping?

[Dick Smith]

There are claims around that because of the decline in general aviation, Australian airlines – of say, 29 pax and more – are putting pilots in the right hand seat with lower and lower total time.

Does anyone have any evidence of this?

Are there any minimums set and are there any examples (either in Australia or overseas) where low total time pilots are in the right hand seat of quite a large aircraft?

Any discussion would be really helpful.

[ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE]

Jetstar Cadet program. RHS of an A320 with 200hrs total time.

[zanthrus]

FARK that is crazy, lunacy. SO glad I don't fly One Star.

[Ollie Onion]

Why is that crazy, many airlines all over the world put 200 hour cadets into the right hand seat with no issues.

[Dick Smith]

Does that mean we no longer need a GA charter or Airwork industry in Australia to feed pilots to the Airlines?

[Cloud Cutter]

That very situation (200 hr FO in a medium jet) has been quite common in many countries for many years, as I'm sure Dick will be aware. Hours flown is only one of many aspects pertaining to a pilot's suitability to join an airline. A well trained 200 hr pilot who has completed an appropriate integrated course may well be more suitable than say a 3,000 hour bush pilot or instructor. Of course, you need very competent and experienced training captains, but the risks are quite manageable.

Here's an example of an integrated ATPL course provider, and the airlines who hire their graduates: L3 Airline Academy (https://www.l3commercialaviation.com/airline-academy/easa-pilot-training/easa-career-prospects/)

[mppgf]

So Zanthrus, Why is it that you don't fly Jetstar ?

[*Lancer*]

Why is that crazy, many airlines all over the world put 200 hour cadets into the right hand seat with no issues.

You can add:

Virgin Australia Cadet Program
Qantas Cadet Program (when it was running) and the Qantas Pilot Academy (when it starts)
Rex Cadet Pilot
QantasLink Trainee First Officer and the Qantas Group Future Pilot Program (Dash 8)

These represent most airline pilot roles in Australia and have all been in operation for many years.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Does that mean we no longer need a GA charter or Airwork industry in Australia to feed pilots to the Airlines?

Not according to our airlines. The push for sausage factories...sorry.....academies is a clear indication of this.

The belief that low time pilots in the right hand seat OS are safe simple because of a lack of problems doesn’t mean it’s safe, it just means the latent threats have not become evident. I’ve flown with many very low hour pilots and most are good but the bad ones are an absolute threat, they are full of classroom “wisdom”, but lack the sensibilities that come from time away from the comfort of the flying school.

We we need a GA industry.

[Captain Sherm]

Been going successfully for years Dick. Decades. In many first second and third world countries. Its been done here for years. Its all a function of training. Just as it was 75 years ago when my dad was given command of a Lancaster with but 300 hours.

Minimums for all seats in the cockpit are set in Part 61. It was open to public consultation.

As as far as I know no link proved beteeen RHS hours and overall safety. The opposite has been shown often. Two very experienced pilots each assuming the other knows what he/she is doing.

if the real barrow you’re pushing is Death of GA =Victory by Evil CASA = Less Safe Airlines. Sorry Dick. Once again you’re out of your depth and wrong.

[Dick Smith]

Captain. No. It is not a barrow I am pushing.

I simply wanted the facts.

Are there any independent Aussie owned flying schools that do the full 200 hours and get pilots straight into the Airlines?

What does it cost the student - any government help?

[Wizofoz]

Been exactly this way in most of the world for decades. The idea that flying a Cessna round the bush is the only way to prepare people to be Airline pilots is anachronistic baloney.

Not saying experience GA guys don't make good airline pilots, as do experienced service pilots.

But taking someone from scratch and specifically educating and training them for the job they will actually be doing also produces a capable pilot- as the thousands of examples in Europe show.

More than one way to skin a cat and just because "we didn't do it that when I was a lad" doesn't make it less effective.

[Global Aviator]

Look at the USA... 1500hr requirement...

Now what would happen in Oz if the same?

The only thing I don’t like about 200hr schemes is airlines that don’t have extensive systems in place and the cadet logs PICUS for his command time, 3000 hrs later - CPT. Ok maybe not in Oz but not to far away.

As had been done for years done properly it’s not an issue at all.

Still would never want to swap the GA days for anything.

The future is however different.

[Capn Bloggs]

Why is that crazy, many airlines all over the world put 200 hour cadets into the right hand seat with no issues.
I don't know whether the rellos of the Ethiopian pax would agree...

[The Bullwinkle]

Why is that crazy, many airlines all over the world put 200 hour cadets into the right hand seat with no issues.

No issues??? :ugh:

[decostyle]

I simply wanted the facts.

Are there any independent Aussie owned flying schools that do the full 200 hours and get pilots straight into the Airlines?

Yes

What does it cost the student - any government help?


$100,000-$150,000. Government Vet-Fee help loans to the maximum allowable. balance paid by student, airline loan, bond etc depending on the program.

[wheels_down]

Didn’t a 20 yr old someone drag a bus tail down 27 at Melbourne on the first ever takeoff?

[hoss]

About 20 years ago you needed about 5000 hours to get an interview with a regional. Being offered a right seat in a Saab felt like a lotto win!

Today a 5000 hour pilot would be in the right seat of a jet close to command.

I think 20 years ago the Austronaut factor was a lot higher and I mean no disrespect to this.

[downwind]

The fact is the hours are dropping globally...

Just take a look at links from a sampling of global operators,

Airlines Ryan Air, Easy jet have been taking people from 200 hour integrated courses and putting them in the right hand seat of a transport category aircraft.

It is all about the quality and thoroughness of the airlines flight school and training program, hours might help a bit and overall finesse of the pilot that comes with 'prior' experience before moving to the left hand seat, BUT it really is down to selection, quality and discipline of the training.

https://careers.ryanair.com/pilots-requirements/ refer cadet section

becomeapilot.easyjet.com (http://becomeapilot.easyjet.com/)

[Tankengine]

Hours in the right seat are dropping in Qantas as F/Os are getting commands after years of stagnation.
longhaul average F/Os probably dropping from around 18000 hours down to 14-15000! SHOCK, HORROR! ;)

[spondonicle]

Didn’t a 20 yr old someone drag a bus tail down 27 at Melbourne on the first ever takeoff?

Yes, sounds familiar. It's the same reason that the QFPP guys usually don't go straight onto the Q400 - rumour has it they banged the tail into the ground too many times...

[Dick Smith]

Global. Are you saying that the FAA has a tougher minimum than CASA?

What are the differences?

[tio540]

Hours in the right seat are dropping in Qantas as F/Os are getting commands after years of stagnation.
longhaul average F/Os probably dropping from around 18000 hours down to 14-15000 (tel:14-15000)! SHOCK, HORROR! ;)

18,000 hours of which o.2 hours every second sector is actual hand flying.

[Ladloy]

Rex is taking non type rated FOs on 500 hours now

[cattletruck]

But taking someone from scratch and specifically educating and training them for the job they will actually be doing also produces a capable pilot- as the thousands of examples in Europe show.

Many a year ago I got an invite into the cockpit of a QF 747 that had just departed Heathrow. In the left seat was one of QF's most experienced captains. In the right seat was a 20 something year old long blonde haired kid who looked pretty green. I thought about it for a while and realised the kid probably accepts that he is in an incredible position to be trained by one of the best kinds of teaching methods possible (in fact he could have even been the captain's son). I occasionally wonder how his career progressed and whether my judgement was proved correct.

[gtseraf]

what worries me is not necessarily the 200 hour newbie in the RHS, it is the low time capt in the LHS who, about 2 nanoseconds ago was the 200hr newbie, who learned the trade from a similar low time Capt. The overall experience levels appear to be dropping and that, I believe is the biggest threat. A low time FO learning from a very experienced captain will learn a lot, a low time FO learning form a very inexperienced capt will learn very little. The overall lack of experience in the industry will come back to haunt us.

[cessnapete]

zanthrus
A pretty insulting comment re Jetstar pilots! Where have you been the last few decades? The practise of which you and Dick seem unaware, has been the norm in Europe for many years.
For example the UK Airline in which spent 31 year aviating, has been accepting cadet pilots into the RHS of two pilot jets since the late 60s early 70s. A necessity unlike Oz, as there is no large GA or Military pool of recruits to draw on.

Started way back on HS Tridents and 737 and now A320 family. High education qualifications followed by stringent selection before flying training. Leave the College with 200 hrs or so, CPL/IR on twin piston, and frozen ATPL.
Type Rating and Base Training, followed by about 50 sectors route training with a Training Capt, and after being released to Line flying rostered only with experienced Capts. for the next six months or so, with regular progress checks.
Many of the original pilots have now retired as Wide Body and Concorde Capts. With no operational problems. Good training. rather than 1500 hours as a C172 Instructor are probably more important.
The ethos continues to the present with experienced DEP recruited directly into the RHS of 744,787,777 and even A380 on two pilot ops. (Many LH routes to USA East Coast Chicago etc are flown with two pilots, including the A380.)
A 3 day selection process and sim check ride before joining.
Partially trained S/Os are not used at all in the airline, on LH routes all operational and relief pilots qualified to carry out handling sectors.
Recently a couple of experienced A380 SFO have moved RHS to LHS on first Commands, it’s the training that counts not only flying hours.

[cattletruck]

has been the norm in Europe for many years.

Flew as pax from Barcelona to Gatwick in an EzyJet A321 and encountered severe turbulence just outside the UK. The captain came on the blower to profusely apologise for the discomfort and he sounded just like a snooty little pommy kid. We bounced around some more, and more apologies were forthcoming over the intercom as he said he was looking for more stable air. Then we had a wing drop over 60 degrees with many pax screaming. The plane then came down to 3000ft and flew (seemed like by hand) beautifully for the next half hour, crossing the English coast like a spit coming back from battle (well that's how I felt about it) until the pilot greased it onto the runway at Gatwick - an impressive bit of handling with no further announcements made. Obviously the captain struggled with the turbulence, but in my mind more than made up for it in the final sector, and a better pilot for the experience.

[Global Aviator]

Global. Are you saying that the FAA has a tougher minimum than CASA?

What are the differences?

Dick,

This link sums it up - https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=14838

Thats why so many Aussies can take advantage of the E3 Visa and work for a US regional.

[Centaurus]

A well trained 200 hr pilot who has completed an appropriate integrated course may well be more suitable than say a 3,000 hour bush pilot or instructor.
That argument has been used for years and is flawed.

Rather like the argument it is safer to employ a 200 hour cadet so that an airline can brain wash (indoctrinate) him from the start with the host airline's SOP's (the world's best of course) rather than hire an experienced GA pilot with considerable command (decision making time) but who purportedly will likely be so full of bad habits that the airline would have to waste valuable resources and time in the simulator just to "re-educate him"

[wheels_down]

what worries me is not necessarily the 200 hour newbie in the RHS, it is the low time capt in the LHS who, about 2 nanoseconds ago was the 200hr newbie, who learned the trade from a similar low time Capt. The overall experience levels appear to be dropping and that, I believe is the biggest threat. A low time FO learning from a very experienced captain will learn a lot, a low time FO learning form a very inexperienced capt will learn very little. The overall lack of experience in the industry will come back to haunt us.
We haven’t reached that stage quite yet but it will probably bite in about 20 odd years when the majority of domestic captains retire, to be replaced with the current wave of cadets. Jetstar are now starting upgrades the initial batch of cadets.

The experienced captain of the next few decades that have gone GA-Charter-Regional => Airbus/Boeing....will be few and far I’m afraid.

[sheppey]

What has always been in my mind when flying in Europe with second in command copilots straight from flying schools via simulator time then into the right hand seat of a jet transport, was how they would cope if the old bloke in the left seat suddenly keeled over at in the cruise at 35000 and the the copilot was all alone apart from ATC, and the autopilot. Many of the recently graduated copilots I flew with wouldn't have a clue quite frankly.

Without all the bells and whistles of automation they have been brought up on during their brief time in the airline, I am convinced they would be out of their depth - despite holding the exalted rank of having three bars and legally second in command. Although not their fault, it is the company imposed complete lack of hands on pure instrument flying ability that is the elephant in the room. Fortunately, statistics are on their side and the short danger period of less than 1000 hours RH seat soon passes.

[cessnapete]

Cattletruck
But you must remember that us snooty pommy kids have a lot to learn from the Oz sky gods!!

[cessnapete]

What has always been in my mind when flying in Europe with second in command copilots straight from flying schools via simulator time then into the right hand seat of a jet transport, was how they would cope if the old bloke in the left seat suddenly keeled over at in the cruise at 35000 and the the copilot was all alone apart from ATC, and the autopilot. Many of the recently graduated copilots I flew with wouldn't have a clue quite frankly.

Without all the bells and whistles of automation they have been brought up on during their brief time in the airline, I am convinced they would be out of their depth - despite holding the exalted rank of having three bars and legally second in command. Although not their fault, it is the company imposed complete lack of hands on pure instrument flying ability that is the elephant in the room. Fortunately, statistics are on their side and the short danger period of less than 1000 hours RH seat soon passes.

Already happened, and with ATC cooperation for a speedy divert and max use of autopilot that you deride, the aircraft funnily enough landed safely. ( The Capt happily recovered)
Do you really think that the said airlines training department would release a P2 onto the line if he was not capable of a single crew emergency??

sheppy
Your airline obviously recruited unsuitable clueless co pilots!!

[The Bullwinkle]

Do you really think that the said airlines training department would release a P2 onto the line if he was not capable of a single crew emergency??
​​​​​​​Quite frankly, yes!

[Chocks Away]

I second that yes! Cathay S/o's are NOT even trained on TCAS manourvres in cruise! Cut backs aplenty!
In today's climate it's all about "affordable safety" (How far can you cut back until safety is compomised & a death occurs!)... all very well until a "Management's" (term used very losely!) offspring dies.
gtseraf - totally agree.
cattletruck - Having experienced the EU weather alot I must say I was always on my toes watching out and trying to read the cloud formations and vapour trail movements. THIS was often the only small indication of turbulence available, that would upset an otherwise pleasant flight service. Thankfully being in a widebody we were often above it (except in China where no Foreign carrier was to be above a local :ugh:) Now I'm not talking about the turbulence experienced often on NATS ot Nth Pacific. That's a very different scenario though has the same basic concepts.
Many "youngen's" are not aware of these tell-tail signs to look out for nowdays... that goes worldwide and even moreso here in Australia, where the champ on my right is often on his/her first jet in the upper levels. Some listen to advice, some don't and their career progresses accordingly.
Aviation doesn't let you have your "oops mistakes" because you chose not to listen or learn, because you thought you knew better or it didn't seem right... That then becomes your reputation, which is all you can hang your hat on together with your log book, in this Industry, which is very small in this region.
So in closing, some great comments in the contributions above and yes I agree definately the minimum hours has decreased, dramatically and all you need to look at to confirm this are all the myryad of endless advertisments on the AFAP and job websites here and globally.
Are the hours right seat better quality now? Not here in Aust, no where near!

[krismiler]

Some countries have to put 200hr pilots in the right seat as their GA sectors are small and can't produce enough 2000hr pilots with charter or regional time to meet airline requirements. Get a CPL in the UK or India and there are very few entry level single engine or light twin jobs available, there are however jobs going in the low cost and airline sectors which have experienced considerable growth. Experienced pilots leaving the military won't be enough in number, so the new licence holder needs to be taken on.

Think of a pyramid with Australia having a large number of pilots in smaller aircraft at the bottom and a small number in airliners at the top, in many countries that gets inverted.

[cessnapete]

Quite frankly, yes!
I’m amazed that you seem to have such poor training departments in your airline that allow such poor calibre co pilots to be released onto line flying,

[havick]

Global. Are you saying that the FAA has a tougher minimum than CASA?

What are the differences?

dick here in the US, anyone flying in an airline (part 121) requires an ATP.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

I’m amazed that you seem to have such poor training departments in your airline that allow such poor calibre co pilots to be released onto line flying,

Is the suggestion that airlines are pumping out cheap FOs as quickly as possible perplexing you?

[mudguard01]

Good on you Dick for asking a simple valid question

Certainly did not have to venture too far to get answers good and bad

[Ollie Onion]

I don't know whether the rellos of the Ethiopian pax would agree...
mate, your’e an idiot if you are suggesting that the FO’s experience was the cause of that accident since you would have to able to know what caused that accident. That’s like saying that the Qantas 747 that went off the runway in BKK had an experienced crew onboard so that is proof that too many hours is a bad thing.

[Ollie Onion]

No issues??? :ugh:

Do tell, what are all the issues then caused by 200 hour FO’s that don’t have just as many corresponding occurrences with crews of higher experience? I await the comprehensive list.

[gtseraf]

We haven’t reached that stage quite yet but it will probably bite in about 20 odd years when the majority of domestic captains retire, to be replaced with the current wave of cadets. Jetstar are now starting upgrades the initial batch of cadets.

The experienced captain of the next few decades that have gone GA-Charter-Regional => Airbus/Boeing....will be few and far I’m afraid.

I agree, my comment was not aimed specifically at Aus but more at a worldwide level, Europe has seen this for at least 20 years, SE Asia as well.

[dr dre]

Think of a pyramid with Australia having a large number of pilots in smaller aircraft at the bottom and a small number in airliners at the top, in many countries that gets inverted.

Sort of, but in truth there’s probably more pilots in airliners here as well compared to smaller GA aircraft. The GA sector has declined considerably over time, and there’s no way airlines would meet their crewing requirements even if they vacuumed all suitable pilots out of GA.

And it’s not as if this is a thing that’s just happened recently. QF, Q-Link, VA, VARA, Rex, JQ, Ansett, Cobham, Maroomba, Airnorth, Sharp, Skippers, O’Connors, MacAir, are just some of the airlines in this country I can remember, past and present, who have put well selected and trained low houred pilots into Turboprops and Jets. They started doing this not recently, but over 50 years ago.

[Vag277]

Fixed wing pilot numbers with current medical at last financial year:
Air transport 7,304; Commercial 5,091; Commercial (CASA EX25/18)a 4,303; Private 9,004

[neville_nobody]

Do tell, what are all the issues then caused by 200 hour FO’s that don’t have just as many corresponding occurrences with crews of higher experience? I await the comprehensive list.



People getting confused between gear levers and flap levers and moving the wrong one. People moving the flaps in the wrong direction just to name a few. Have a look at the ATSB reports there are a few in there.

And it’s not as if this is a thing that’s just happened recently. QF, Q-Link, VA, VARA, Rex, JQ, Ansett, Cobham, Maroomba, Airnorth, Sharp, Skippers, O’Connors, MacAir, are just some of the airlines in this country I can remember, past and present, who have put well selected and trained low houred pilots into Turboprops and Jets. They started doing this not recently, but over 50 years ago.

The vast majority of that list needed 3000 hours plus to get a job 30 years ago. Not uncommon to get nickled and dimed over what your experience consisted of too. 'Oh not enough night, not enough IFR, oh you haven't flown in real icing over here etc etc.

[Ollie Onion]

Yes, but what I am saying is that these types of incidents are not exclusive to low hour FO's, I have conducted plenty of investigations and the only 'Flap' lever movement in the wrong direction I have investigated was actioned by the Captain. There is no doubt that unfamiliarity with a type can lead to a greater number of mistakes, I don't see though how having 3000 hours in a tourist operation flying 172's lessens this risk on an A320 or a 737. New to type is new to type, think of all of those over 60 Captains that Air NZ basically sacked as they couldn't meet the minimum standards during their A320 line training, they went to court and lost, their experience didn't help them pass a course that a 200 hour cadet can pass. I just don't think you can say putting 200 hour pilots in the RHS is bad just because Australia is decades behind the rest of the world and people want to protect GA as that is where most of us come from.

[Blitzkrieger]

Dr Dre, Cobham only recently allowed new hires to join without an ATPL. Before that they needed an active ATPL, 500 hrs multi and most had extensive turboprop command.

[dr dre]

The vast majority of that list needed 3000 hours plus to get a job 30 years ago. Not uncommon to get nickled and dimed over what your experience consisted of too. 'Oh not enough night, not enough IFR, oh you haven't flown in real icing over here etc etc.


They didn’t “need” 3000hrs to get an airline job because only those with 3000hrs have the ability to fly airliners. They needed 3000hrs because there were far more pilots than jobs and that was the easiest way back then to cull numbers of applicants. Now with the exponential growth of the airline sector this isn’t the case.

When we’re talking about 250hr cadets in the right hand seats of turboprops and Jets we aren’t talking about grabbing random graduates fresh out of CPL training out of any old flying school.

Tough selection processes, structured and appropriate training for multicrew ops, regular assessment of standards and structured line training is the name of the game. Europeans have been doing this for decades. And honestly it has been happening in Australia too on a smaller scale for longer than most seem to acknowledge.

[cessnapete]

Is the suggestion that airlines are pumping out cheap FOs as quickly as possible perplexing you?
No, but my airline does not “pump out” F/Os onto the line unless they are trained and capable and safe to do the job. From the coments on this topic, that doesn’t seem to be the case in some Australian posters airlines. Very worrying.
“Cheap FOs”? A new joiner is obviously paid less than a long serving one, it’s called pay scales, and Seniority!

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Now with the exponential growth of the airline sector this isn’t the case.
​​​​​​
Coupled with the exponential decline in conditions and viability of aviation as a career along with the slow death of GA in Australia.

CessnaPete, the whole low hour RHS thing is geared to reducing future staff costs and nothing more. Firstly, airlines know that aspiring pilots will do anything to get into a jet immediately, including working for peanuts and being held in bondage for years. They also know that throwing a low time pilot in the right hand seat of a jet means they get cheap FOs and a cheap regular line Captain who will babysit/train them through the “early days” safe in the knowledge that the Captain retains strictly liability. Airlines also know that CASA readily falls for the “show us the accident stats” defence.

Dick, the RHS experience levels are declining and I’m sure the travelling public are not even remotely aware, furthermore the airlines would never dream of revealing it.

[Global Aviator]

Why did FAA go the way they did?

What were the repercussions?

What does it mean now?

(Yes I know the answers, just putting it out there as for some reason it does not seem to gain any momentum the discussion).

As I said great for Aussies with the E3.

[The Green Goblin]

About 20 years ago you needed about 5000 hours to get an interview with a regional..

20 years ago, you got into Qantas or Ansett straight out of GA with under 2000 hours, in many cases straight out of a Cessna from Kununurra. I know plenty of pilots who did a season and went straight to Qantas. You were either the right stuff, or you were not.

If if you didn’t get picked up - it was a long slog through GA and into the regionals. If you stuck at it. The best you could hope for was link or hazos. Impulse etc. If you were pretty special, you may have got a look in at National Jet on the 146. They were very picky. Meaning a de orbit burn or two. Mostly you had to pay to progress. If you were lucky to make it that far. There were gigs overseas in dark corners and far flung places offering an airline version of GA. Renewable every 5 years or so with a new contract. After you managed the deorbit burns in Australia or managed to pay a lot of money for a type rating.

The worlds changed, flying is more affordable and there’s more of it. So the opportunities came with it.

I have no problem with a well trained 200 hour pilot in the right seat. You can’t tell the difference between them and a ex regional pilot after a few years. They may just be a little smarter due to the stricter vetting they went through to get there. It’s a different job flying a jet, especially a long haul one. It’s about knowing a lot of stuff about a lot of stuff.

No disrespect to Captain Sherms old boy, but I believe they had a ‘little’ retention problem in the RAF back then. If you ticked the box, you flew it. If you came back, well done young chap. Now go out again. I couldn’t have done it.

I loved my GA time. However, it did absolutely nothing for my airline flying. Well except it gave me a magic number to progress to the next level and some battle stories to tell. They’re that far embellished these days it’s hard to tell exactly what went on back then. I think maybe I just got better. In the stories anyway.

Being on both sides of the fence, I can say the only ones who care deeply about cadets, are the ones who are not cadets, and the ones who have to do their airline conversion.

If I had my time again I would have done a Cadetship in a heart beat and have been 1,000,000 dollars better off financially.

[Global Aviator]

The GG, each to their own!

I wouldn’t trade my GA days for the world.

Yes I feel belting around in a 210 having to make decisions has helped me in my airline and corporate career.

[krismiler]

Mid 1990s and I couldn't even get an interview for rhs turboprop despite having an ATPL 4000 hrs total with multi engine and turbine time. Late 1990s and GA employers were still paying below the award IF they gave you a job. Early 2000s, flew with a Westwind Captain who was willing to go back into the right seat of a Metroliner just to get into Kendall Airlines. Virgin Blue required you to pay for your own B737 rating. Things started improving around the mid 2000s at the lower end however paying for your endorsement is still with us.

Plenty of opportunities in Asia for experienced jet pilots with a decent type on their licence.

[cessnapete]

​​​​​​
Coupled with the exponential decline in conditions and viability of aviation as a career along with the slow death of GA in Australia.

CessnaPete, the whole low hour RHS thing is geared to reducing future staff costs and nothing more. Firstly, airlines know that aspiring pilots will do anything to get into a jet immediately, including working for peanuts and being held in bondage for years. They also know that throwing a low time pilot in the right hand seat of a jet means they get cheap FOs and a cheap regular line Captain who will babysit/train them through the “early days” safe in the knowledge that the Captain retains strictly liability. Airlines also know that CASA readily falls for the “show us the accident stats” defence.

Dick, the RHS experience levels are declining and I’m sure the travelling public are not even remotely aware, furthermore the airlines would never dream of revealing it.


Gordon,
You are missing the point. There is no pool of 'experienced' high hours jet rated F\Os to recruit from in UK/Europe, for the reasons posted before.
Your stringently selected/competently trained and route mentored 250 hour pilots will become 1500 hour experienced, multi sector operators, after a couple of years, then everyone can be happy? In my part of the world if they don't reach the standards required they are rejected. You have to start somewhere.
People continue to bang on about inexperienced, presumably ill trained, incompetent F/Os,in their employ, that's the airline training management fault. Worrying, if thats the case.
Statistically for example BEA/BA has had no safety issues after many years of cadet recruitment.
Ryanair (despite their less than glorious customer service reputation!!) operate hundreds of nearly new B737, every day. on thousands of sectors around Europe, some with new hire F/Os. Operating to some operationally demanding, less equipped, regional airports. Their safety record is second to none.

[NOSIGN]

Whether you’re flying left or right seat, I think, that there is an unspoken respect and comarade between Pilots when you know that they’ve shared a similar arduous path in staying alive in an aeroplane through some respectable period of time. If nothing more, I t’s a human factors aspect that shouldn’t be ignored.

200hr Pilots can be trained to do a job (I would’ve argued the same when I had mine), but if the requirement of the day is to have two Pilots flying the aircraft, then you can’t beat that couple thousand hours in GA before youre given the responsibility.

[dr dre]

Whether you’re flying left or right seat, I think, that there is an unspoken respect and comarade between Pilots when you know that they’ve shared a similar arduous path in staying alive in an aeroplane through some respectable period of time. If nothing more, I t’s a human factors aspect that shouldn’t be ignored.

Errrr no. Pilots will judge the others they fly with on ability, attitude and character in their present role. Only a small minority of pilots would show less respect to a pilot because of their prior background, that’s akin to racism in a way.

Maybe a lot of people would bond more easily because of shared backgrounds or prior jobs or such, but that shouldn’t mean they don’t give the same level of professional respect to a pilot because they didn’t follow the same path into an airline that they did. If they do that’s a sign of poor character.

[Ladloy]

Generally from my experience those from GA who come into regionals have a negative perception of ex cadets, and understandably thay comes from the GA echo chamber that cadets are jumping the queue and lack ability. Those views don't generally last once they realise the mountain every single pilot has to climb to get checked to line and that most of the LHS pilots are coming from the cadet stream.

[KRUSTY 34]

Fixed wing pilot numbers with current medical at last financial year:
Air transport 7,304; Commercial 5,091; Commercial (CASA EX25/18)a 4,303; Private 9,004

Interesting stats. I would have thought there would be fewer ATPLs than CPLs.

Is this further evidence of the well known decline in GA?

[neville_nobody]

Generally from my experience those from GA who come into regionals have a negative perception of ex cadets, and understandably thay comes from the GA echo chamber that cadets are jumping the queue and lack ability.
The reason for that is your average GA pilot has taken exponentially more career/social/financial risk than any cadet will ever take, to basically get the same job and fly to the same standard. Which does lead to a level of bitterness or resentment amongst some pilots.

[Wizofoz]

Interesting stats. I would have thought there would be fewer ATPLs than CPLs.

Is this further evidence of the well known decline in GA?

Not necessarily- most pilots will get their ATPL once they qualify, even if it isn't required for their current job. PLUS a lot of "GA" jobs require an ATPL.

[jonkster]

Are hours pretty much meaningless after a thousand hours or so?

If a 200hr company chosen and trained cadet has pretty much the same ability as a 1500hr CPL who gained the hours via GA, do hours really matter that much?

I can understand that stick skills may reach a plateau after a while (providing the pilot remains current) but have always thought it is not so much hands on stick time but experience (and particularly command experience) that continues to grow with the log book hours and is inherently valuable, above hand skills (once the hand skills reach a suitable level).

After 2-3000 hours, do more hours merely indicate seniority rather than experience and value as a pilot?

Is it that modern transport aircraft do not really need that much skill and judgement in the RHS to safely operate and so we can happily let the pilot gain the hours and experience straight from there, ie actual FO experience isn't that important in the safe operation of the aircraft, you can put a low level (experience) person in there and let them gain what they need?
.
I would like to think there is more to a pilot's value than reaching a competency standard. You cannot put a 'competency level' against experience but to me, that doesn't make it unimportant.

[KRUSTY 34]

The reason for that is your average GA pilot has taken exponentially more career/social/financial risk than any cadet will ever take, to basically get the same job and fly to the same standard. Which does lead to a level of bitterness or resentment amongst some pilots.

I suspect Neville that you like I fall into the category you have described. But I’ll tell you an interesting story, and my apologies for any thread drift.
Some years ago a certain Regional airline decided to create a Cadet program. In addition to the usual well worn reasons, there was also a subtle, and at times not so subtle secondary agenda. This agenda had many layers:

Unlike those pesky Direct entry types, these Cadets will be “our” Boys and Girls. Towing the company line without question.

They were described as far superior in every respect, not only by the PR machine, but in front of entire groundschool classes where both entry streams were present!

Initially most people struggled to account for this curious attack. Far from simple vindictiveness, it soon became apparent that it was designed to drive a wedge between the two groups.

During their initial training, Cadets were constantly reminded of their vulnerability of employment. Some were even summarily dismissed from the program. Obviously as a warning to the others.

one the eve of their graduation they were forced to sign a pre employment “contract” agreeing to waive certain Industrial rights.

Once employed, the overwhelming majority joined the Pilot’s Union.

From what I know, most of the graduated Cadets have gone on to become first rate pilots. To their credit, the Direct Entry pilots saw through the cynical, and some may say dangerous attempts to undermine employee cohesion. Rightfully so, the Direct Entry pilots have treated the former cadets as friends and colleagues.

In my opinion the last line of defense with regard to safety in the flight deck relies (as it always has) on the professionalism of the people upfront. Fortunately this professionalism remains. Despite a disgraceful attempt to undermine it.

if we fall into the trap of alienating one group from another based on factors outside of our control, we all lose.

[MickG0105]

There are claims around that because of the decline in general aviation, Australian airlines – of say, 29 pax and more – are putting pilots in the right hand seat with lower and lower total time.

Does anyone have any evidence of this?

Are there any minimums set and are there any examples (either in Australia or overseas) where low total time pilots are in the right hand seat of quite a large aircraft?

Any discussion would be really helpful.
Dick, if you want to understand what has been going on to right hand seat qualifications you should look into ‘multi-crew pilot licencing‘ (MPL).

MPL has been burbling away since 2006 when ICAO published the Procedures for Air Navigation Services - Training (PANS-TRG), doc 9868t. MPL is covered in Appendix 1. It fundamentally shifts the focus from prescriptive flying hour requirements to competency-based training and assessment. It places significant emphasis on simulator training right down to what most of us would consider 'ab initio' stuff.

It also takes the approach of training FOs from the outset to be part of a multi-crew environment rather than the 'traditional' approach of training for individual command competencies which then need to be 'adapted' to a multi-crew environment. As you might expect, its development and uptake has been not without controversy.

EASA were one of the early adopters. CASA has also approved it (only recently I think) but I don't think that either QF or VA are looking to adopt it ... yet. The FAA is sticking to its CPL/ATPL hours based approach.

For short reads, both the International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations and the European Cockpit Association have published papers on it. For a longer, more detailed read there is a very good paper on MPL by Sweden’s Lund University’s School of Aviation (Rickard Wikander and Dr. Nicklas Dahlström). Dahlström is pretty well known as Emirates’ safety, training and human factors guru.

Airlines currently using MPL are mainly European and South East Asian low cost carriers such as Flybe, Air Asia, Tiger, Air Berlin, Norwegian Air Shuttle, China Eastern, Xiamen, Air China, Easyjet, Dragon Air and Fly Nikki. The more mainstream carriers also using MPL are Ethiopian, Thai Airways and Qatar. That list is not necessarily complete.

One of the consistent points of concern with MPL is that 'technically' it can put someone in the right hand seat ​​​​​​with a minimum 240 hours combined simulator/flight time with a 7:1 split in those hours between the sim and an actual aircraft. In 2016 ICAO dropped the minimum number of flown take-offs/landings required from 12 to 6 so long as competency is demonstrated. That change has been adopted by EASA.

What all that means is that 'technically' an MPL first officer can take the right hand seat on something like an A320 or a B737 with as little as 30 actual flying hours (plus 210 sim hours) and 6 actual landings.

I fully expect that MPL will be in the spotlight following the Ethiopian Airlines 302 crash. Near as I can tell this is the first serious accident where the FO was a low hours MPL graduate (the first officer had accumulated a total of 350 flight hours). One of the potential issues with an MPL FO (well, any FO really) is that if they can't manage their required duties in an emergency under actual emergency conditions then the whole thing quickly becomes a one-man show with the Commander/PF becoming quickly task saturated. Early reporting of ET302 has the Captain on the radio throughout - that was a bit of a worrying sign but best wait till we see the preliminary report.

[Dick Smith]

Mick. Thanks for such a detailed answer.

Of course time time will tell which is the most successful approach.

I can see advantages and disadvantages with each system.

[MickG0105]

Mick. Thanks for such a detailed answer.

Of course time time will tell which is the most successful approach.

I can see advantages and disadvantages with each system.
No problem at all, Dick. MPL is something that I've spent a bit of time looking into just recently so more than happy to share what I've learned.

You are dead right in that there are pros and cons for the different approaches to training and assessment. For better or for worse the traditional approach was a bit Darwinian.

One of the most pressing issues with MPL, being competency-based, is that you need to invest effort in clearly, unambiguously and objectively defining what competent looks like for every task performed. Sounds easy but it proves somewhat difficult in practice. And whenever difficult in practice meets the real world you get work arounds and divergent 'standards'. You've only got to look at the discussion around whether the training and competency for handling Runaway Stabilizer on the B737 NG is a reasonably transferable competency standard for handling MCAS-induced AND trim commands.

The other pressing issue for MPL is the efficacy of simulator-based training. Apart from the verisimilitude limitations particularly around 'true feel' above 1G there are the very practical limitations around programming restricting what can be trained for.

The good news is that there's over a decade's worth of experience with MPL now available to review.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

CessnaPete I get it completely, I agree there is no pool of qualified professional pilots to do the job, but it’s not just a case of bad luck, rather bad management. The original question put by Dick pertained to reducing minimum hours in the right seat and the answer is an emphatic yes.

[Global Aviator]

MPL or cadetship with the airline training focus is different to guys/gals with 300
hours and a bare rating getting into the RHS.

Yes it does happen, maybe not in Oz.

Im still waiting for comment on who thinks the FAA way has merit or not.

[dream747]

By ATSB on this subject:

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4171790/ar-2012-023_final.pdf

[pilotchute]

MPL or cadetship with the airline training focus is different to guys/gals with 300
hours and a bare rating getting into the RHS.

Yes it does happen, maybe not in Oz.

Im still waiting for comment on who thinks the FAA way has merit or not.

The FAA has lifted pay and conditions with the 1500 rule. Pilots dont seem to be sleeping in crew rooms as much as they used to or commuting from one coast to another.

Funny how once you have 1500 hours you wont fly a jet for $20 an hour. If the 1500 hour rule didnt exist RJ's would be full of 250 hour wonders working for nothing.

[LeadSled]

Not necessarily- most pilots will get their ATPL once they qualify, even if it isn't required for their current job. PLUS a lot of "GA" jobs require an ATPL.
Wiz,
Once upon a time, but no longer, given the difficulty of suitable aircraft and horrendous cost of the ATPL flight test.
Tootle pip!!

[Capn Bloggs]

What a load of absolute bollocks.
Calm down. All Mick was doing was expressing an opinion in a measured way, unlike your rant.

[krismiler]

Air transport 7,304; Commercial 5,091; Commercial (CASA EX25/18)a 4,303; Private 9,004

Assuming ATPL holders come from the ranks of CPL holders, this means that there are only 5000 potential future ATPL holders out there. 30% fewer then at the moment.

What is the average age of ATPL holders, almost certainly older then CPL holders but are we facing a bulge of retirements in a short time period which would reduce the numbers even further ?

How many of the CPL holders are close to obtaining the ATPL already with exams passed and a couple of hundred hours to go, compared to new licence and little experience ?

If most ATPL holders were 30 years old and most CPL holders were six months away from getting a higher ticket then things aren't so bad.

If there is going to be a large number of older pilots retiring over a short time period and few experienced younger pilots moving through the ranks, there could be the problem of a yawning gap in between the crusty old timers and the 200 hour wonders.

[MickG0105]

What a load of absolute bollocks.Even though very little has been released to the public about the tragic ET accident (unless you know a great deal not very many others do), it's quite clear that the issue at hand is not the First Officer's experience level let alone the MPL. This much is patently clear given Boeing's response to the event - the manufacturer having accessed the flight data recorders too, it might be added.And if you're going to sit there and put down "well, any FO really" then I doubt you have any qualification to comment on issues that occur within a multi-crew environment. A Captain making all radio comms throughout an emergency (can you say with certainty who was PF or even what the task sharing situation was in the Ethiopian accident you refer to?) does not simply reflect poorly on the FO's ability as you allude to. It could just as easily point to a Captain's over-bearing nature which itself can have a negative an effect on a crew's attempt to resolve a given situation.You do a great disservice to yourself and to the reasonably balanced discussion that is ongoing in this thread by barging in with your baseless nonsense referencing a recent tragedy of which you have no understanding of in order to support your whimsical thoughts.I suspect from your posts that you're not (or were) an airline pilot so to sit in judgement of those who are doing a job you have never done yourself is beyond me.

If you're going to start an argument about what I've said best you focus on what I've actually said rather than what you think I've said because there is manifestly a veritable gulf between the two.

I didn't say that the FO's experience was the cause of the ET302 crash. I didn't even say that it was a contributing factor. In a thread specifically discussing the topic of FO experience I made the point that 'I fully expect that' an aspect of the topic being discussed in this thread will get some attention. And I do. And time, not you, will tell whether I am correct on that.

As to my qualifications to comment on this, I am most assuredly not an airline pilot. Never claimed to be, and in fact in other posts in other threads, I have made it clear that I am not. That said, I have spent a fair bit of time over the past few weeks researching MPL and that entailed speaking to or corresponding with at least a dozen high hour, very experienced current commercial pilots (many of whom I know from our days in the RAAF). My observation regarding FO performance in an emergency is essentially a distillation of their views on the matter.

And to be clear, I am not 'sitting in judgement' on the crew of ET302. Neither of them chose the level of training that they received or made determinations about the standards.

As to whether I'm doing myself a disservice or otherwise, I'll happily place any contributions I've made to any thread up for scrutiny with regards to them being properly informed, factually correct and logically reasoned.

[MickG0105]

Mick, I wasn't starting an argument and nor do I want one. However, I took issue with, and was merely refuting, a clear inference in your post. You're being disingenuous if you now try and say you weren't insinuating that the FO's experience in the ET accident wasn't a contributing factor in the outcome. It's rather clear.Perhaps you might remind those RAAF correspondents of yours (and the others) that they were low hour pilots/co-pilots themselves once upon a time. Having been in the service (which I deeply respect) is no ticket to a high chair of judgement of those in the airlines. Two guys that were both 12 ship leaders in the RAF I know failed their command courses in a European airline so military talent does not always translate to success in the civilian world. Excellent single seat military pilots have struggled in a multi-crew environment. Similarly, average guys thrive in a team so it takes all sorts.But with regard to putting your comments up to scrutiny - what do you know about the level of training or standards at ET that the guys "chose" to receive?Once again you are labouring points that I have not made, arguing about things that I have not said and failing to read what I have written.

I have no intention of running a remedial written comprehension class here but if I was I would point out that inferences are something that the reader draws, they are not something that the writer makes; you either missed or deliberately ignored the fact that I stated that the pilots that I have discussed this matter with are 'high hour, very experienced current commercial pilots' - the ones that were in the RAAF have now spent longer in the airlines than they did in the RAAF, they are all Captains, they are well versed in CRM, some are TREs, one holds post-grad qualifications in Human Factors - in sum, they know what they are talking about when it comes to operating in a multi-crew environment, that's where they work; you quote two sentences from me above - neither are misinformed, factually incorrect or illogically reasoned.

And that's me done on this matter with you. This argy-barge is adding nothing to this thread.

[sheppey]

One of the most pressing issues with MPL, being competency-based, is that you need to invest effort in clearly, unambiguously and objectively defining what competent looks like for every task performed.
Please forgive my ignorance of where this term "Competency Based Training" all started from. I have always thought that all flying training was 'competency' based.

Is it, for example, merely a flash method of ticking boxes on a hate sheet? Or maybe arse covering to minimize the chances being hit with Penalty Points at the next CASA audit of the books? I talked to a former CASA Examiner recently who, because of his love of flying and to get away from the stifling confines of his open plan office, happily instructs on light aircraft. He said it took him over 1.5 hours of box ticking before he was able to send a student on his first solo in a Cessna 152.

But all that aside. Clearly he would have ensured his student was competent at each sequence required before giving his student a fatherly pat on the back and sending him solo. Isn't that competency based training? Something that started with learning to fly? . In my first RAAF Log Book is a sheet of paper pinned to the first page was called called "Sequences of Instruction as per A.P 3225". Sequence No 1 is Familiarisation. . No 2 is Preparation for Flight. No 12 is First Solo. And so on until No 21 Formation Flying. A student pilots progress report certifying competency or otherwise was all the paperwork required. So what's new with the MPL being competency based training? Isn't all training aimed at getting someone competent at the desired task?.

[pilotchute]

Sorry, what does MPL have to do with this? I dont care how the FO was trained. He was online at a pretty respectable airline so he showed the required skills to be there.

[Vag277]

https://www.myskills.gov.au/media/1776/back-to-basics-competency-based-training.pdf
https://www.icao.int/ESAF/Documents/meetings/2017/LOC-I%20and%20UPRT%202017/Updated%20Documents/Amdt%205%20to%20PANS-TRG%20v2.pdf

Two explanations but not really sure that things improve as a result

[fdr]

No disrespect to Captain Sherms old boy, but I believe they had a ‘little’ retention problem in the RAF back then. If you ticked the box, you flew it. If you came back, well done young chap. Now go out again. I couldn’t have done it.


ROFL, Well done. Round II had a rather pressing retention problem, and sadly so. Sherm, I thought your dad flew Stirlings first up?

200hrs or 2000hrs, doesn't make much difference. RPT operations are structured tightly and provide a fairly safe process to induct crew into the operation. By the time the pilot has got to the line, their type rating program and the preceding induction will have given substantial standardisation to their operation. Line training may be a box ticking exercise with some operations, but it gives a nod to risk management at the very least.

The outcome may not be the absolute best, but it is well above the acceptable level for the situation that the industry faces. The luxury of a long line of prospective trainees doesn't exist so much any more, and the aircraft equipment state, and organisational oversight provides a vast improvement over days of old. The failure modes have also changed, and that highlights a lack of general flying skills to revert to, however, the events to date have not had only low time pilots involved, they have generally had pilots with substantial experience in the RPT operations but who amy have come from a background without exposure to a wider envelope of flight experience.

[LeadSled]

https://www.myskills.gov.au/media/1776/back-to-basics-competency-based-training.pdf
https://www.icao.int/ESAF/Documents/meetings/2017/LOC-I%20and%20UPRT%202017/Updated%20Documents/Amdt%205%20to%20PANS-TRG%20v2.pdf

Two explanations but not really sure that things improve as a result

But it does illustrate that "Competency based training" is not something dreamed up for the MPL or by CASA ----- Indeed, CASA was the last holdout to a "whole of Government" education policy.

It should not be forgotten that CBT was intended to introduce a degree of flexibility into trade training ---- once competency was achieved, it was achieved, in contrast to the centuries old apprentice and journeyman system, where the most important measure of "competency" was "time accumulated" ----- which many of you are still wedded to, in your insistence that 2000 hours (or number of your choice) equals competent, 200 hours equals incompetent.

Tootle pip!!

[sheppey]

which many of you are still wedded to, in your insistence that 2000 hours (or number of your choice) equals competent, 200 hours equals incompetent.
Not so at all. On the other hand, surely common sense would dictate that a pilot's experience level should not be judged so irrelevant as to be disregarded as a factor in recruitment to the RH seat. I have been in the situation during a night circling approach in dodgy weather where I quietly thought I had better not stuff this up because sure as hell, my 250 hour newly type rated colleague in the other seat, had already demonstrated he was out of his depth. It was not necessarily his fault. It was the system that put him there.

[Captain Nomad]

The problem with competency based training is that you can be deemed competent on the day under a particular set of circumstances, but there is no guarantee that you will perform to the same standard tomorrow, next week, after two months, or under a similar or different set of circumstances... Ask any instructor who has to sign their life away to send a student solo... It takes time to develop consistency under a variety of circumstances and the ability to apply knowledge from a quiver of previous experiences to new situations. This is one of the mysterious things that is hard to quantify (but valuable none the less) about experience and cannot be injected directly into a new comer. If nothing else, it increases the mental working capacity of the pilot operating under pressure before they reach task saturation in a complicated situation. This is why a 250 hour pilot can get out of their depth much quicker despite having good training and good SOPs.

[dr dre]

The problem with competency based training is that you can be deemed competent on the day under a particular set of circumstances, but there is no guarantee that you will perform to the same standard tomorrow, next week.....

This is why a 250 hour pilot can get out of their depth much quicker despite having good training and good SOPs.

The exact same can be said for any pilot who’s experience isn’t relevant to that situation.

A great example is Colgan 3407 in 2009. The first officer had roughly 1500hrs of GA experience before being hired by the airline, but on the CVR of the flight is talking about having never been in icing conditions as bad as they encountered and not feeling comfortable about it. Her prior experience as an instructor in sunny Arizona didn’t prevent her from being out of her depth for a situation she had no prior experience in. Yet airlines in Scandinavia can put 250hr cadets into the right hand seat of jets and turboprops in extremely poor winter conditions and have a great operational safety record.

[Ollie Onion]

Not so at all. On the other hand, surely common sense would dictate that a pilot's experience level should not be judged so irrelevant as to be disregarded as a factor in recruitment to the RH seat. I have been in the situation during a night circling approach in dodgy weather where I quietly thought I had better not stuff this up because sure as hell, my 250 hour newly type rated colleague in the other seat, had already demonstrated he was out of his depth. It was not necessarily his fault. It was the system that put him there.

not sure if this proves anything, I have been with Captains who I thought were out of their depth in particular situations and my last event where I had to take control from someone was an FO with over 6,000 hours including GA and Turboprop background when he completely mishandled a visual approach despite some guidance and intervention from me early on in the piece. The last trainee Captain I was with was excellent and the best trainee in the left seat I have ever had, he was an ex-cadet who joined 5 years ago with 200 hours. My conclusion after this is not a lot really, just that you can’t say more hours equals better, sure you can use total hours as a tool to sort potential candidates but appitude testing, personality and motivation are probably better indicators for who you should hire. There will be GA pilots who hands down are better that some cadets just as there are some cadets who even with 200 hours are hands down better operators than some ‘experienced’ ex-GA pilots.

[Rated De]

not sure if this proves anything, I have been with Captains who I thought were out of their depth in particular situations and my last event where I had to take control from someone was an FO with over 6,000 hours including GA and Turboprop background when he completely mishandled a visual approach despite some guidance and intervention from me early on in the piece. The last trainee Captain I was with was excellent and the best trainee in the left seat I have ever had, he was an ex-cadet who joined 5 years ago with 200 hours. My conclusion after this is not a lot really, just that you can’t say more hours equals better, sure you can use total hours as a tool to sort potential candidates but appitude testing, personality and motivation are probably better indicators for who you should hire. There will be GA pilots who hands down are better that some cadets just as there are some cadets who even with 200 hours are hands down better operators than some ‘experienced’ ex-GA pilots.



Experience counts in all endeavours.
Particularly when the entity has the appropriate structures whereby the benefits of learning are captured. Learning cultures were once the benchmark.
It is a question open to debate whether modern airline management practice actually 'invests' in learning culture.
Whether a particular pilot is cadet, military of General Aviation is irrelevant, for the majority of time operations are benign. Hopefully that experience is accumulated such that in the vast majority of cases there is sufficient for when the operation is non-normal.
To paraphrase Captain Sullenberger "We make deposits into our experience bank. When we need to make the withdrawal we hope we have enough to cover it."


Where experience 'generally' matters is non-normal.
It is why the development of learning algorithms is being pursed with such vigour; experience does matter.

[downwind]

Some murmuring a I hear within the industry from some peope in GA trying to get into the likes of Qantas link who have the hours are being turned down at the interview stage. After the turn away from the qf group some I understand are going to the USA to work in the regionals??? So it begs the question is their really a shortage of skilled people in Australia if this is the case?

[pilotchute]

Some murmuring a I hear within the industry from some peope in GA trying to get into the likes of Qantas link who have the hours are being turned down at the interview stage. After the turn away from the qf group some I understand are going to the USA to work in the regionals??? So it begs the question is their really a shortage of skilled people in Australia if this is the case?

Well I am one. Apparently I didnt have enough "recent IF experience" for Qlink and Alliance wanted 500 hours multi crew even though the ad didnt ask for it.

Flying a E145 now so their loss.

[machtuk]

Some murmuring a I hear within the industry from some peope in GA trying to get into the likes of Qantas link who have the hours are being turned down at the interview stage. After the turn away from the qf group some I understand are going to the USA to work in the regionals??? So it begs the question is their really a shortage of skilled people in Australia if this is the case?

I don't believe there is a driver shortage as such, there is more like a shortage of drivers that the Airlines want considering all their hairy fairy crap they desire, not who can do the job, big difference there !

EG: One of my F/O's on the jet we fly who is a good operator, around 30 yrs of age, knows his stuff pretty well & will one day make a good Capt when he gets the ATPL hours etc...….BUT he can't get a look in at the Majors, he's tried but to no avail? Nope no shortage !

[*Lancer*]

This topic always generates a lot of strong opinions, although there is very little empirical research to support many of those opinions. The occasional incident where low experience was a factor does not demonstrate a systemic issue, as mishandling events occur to pilots of all experience levels.

For some local research on the subject:

The overall performance of cadets and low-hour pilots matched that of their direct entry and high- hour peers. All pilots were marked as proficient at the completion of the check flights, with the only differences between the groups being a function of how many exceeded the required standard.

The differences between the low and high-hour pilots in ‘meeting’ and ‘exceeding’ the standard across all metrics were variable within airlines and inconsistent across all three airlines. This suggests that the differences between the groups were not of a systemic nature that would highlight an area of concern for industry. While the metric normal landing showed a difference across two of the three airlines, none of the other required regulatory manoeuvres or technical metrics were significantly different in more than one airline. For non-technical metrics, both leadership and situation awareness were significantly different in all three airlines. Although this is understandable given the low experience of cadet and low-hour pilots, focused exposure to those metrics during initial airline training may reduce this difference as was seen in the data for cadets collected at the 5-year mark in one airline.

The evidence in this report indicates that the cadet pathway for low-hour pilots is a valid option for airlines. There was no evidence to indicate that cadets or low-hour pilots within the airlines studied were any less competent or proficient than their direct entry and high-hour peers.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4171790/ar-2012-023_final.pdf

[Capn Bloggs]

In that case, drop the command hours to say an MPL of 400 hours long (double the experience of an FO, that should be safe enough). Experience means nothing. Everybody can be trained to the required standard.

[*Lancer*]

Bloggs, the issue raised is whether our current legal minimum experience levels are satisfactory: CPL for airline entry, ATPL for airline Command.

Once you go above this minimum level, we use hours almost unilaterally as the sole, arbitrary and under-researched measure of experience. One is much easier to quantify than the other, but they are different things. :8

[Capn Bloggs]

Lancer, others (and the ATSB, it seems) think that MPL FOs are no worse than [insert nay number of flying hours here]-hour "other" pilots. I was just extrapolating that into the MPL captain, as it appears that experience (and all the benefits it brings) can be trained.

[Gligg]

In a 40+ year flying career, an incident or accident can happen at any time - the odds that somebody’s ‘Sully’ moment strikes in the first year or two of gaining those first couple of thousand hours is relatively low. While that is a good thing, it can also cloud the argument over the value of experience.

[Rated De]

In a 40+ year flying career, an incident or accident can happen at any time - the odds that somebody’s ‘Sully’ moment strikes in the first year or two of gaining those first couple of thousand hours is relatively low. While that is a good thing, it can also cloud the argument over the value of experience.

The absence of the said event does not validate that experience is not relevant.
The industry cannot measure something that hasn't happened, thus, the lowering of experience minimums is based wholly on the absence of sufficient events, the assumption that statistically it will not happen (because it has not) and continued pressure to reduce labour unit cost.

Ultimately, faced with serious surgery how many can honestly say the age and experience of the surgeon does not matter?


Dealing with a broken aircraft in flight can never be replicated in a simulator.
Pilots in a simulator know the worst thing that happens is the simulator is reset and maybe some additional training.

[Ollie Onion]

Ultimately, faced with serious surgery how many can honestly say the age and experience of the surgeon does not matter?
.

Not sure this is the best example, most research shows that the best surgical outcomes are from surgeons who have between 5 and 20 years practical experience i.e you want to avoid the brand new surgeons but that you also want to avoid the surgeons who are over approx 50 years of age. So in a pilot context this would suggest that pilots into the right hand seat are vulnerable to make mistakes due to experience in the first 5 years but that pilots who have over 20 years of experience are also prone to mistakes and errors. So maybe arguing the experience card we should also be encouraging Captains of 20 years or more time into retirement for the good of everyone :-)

[maggot]

Not sure this is the best example, most research shows that the best surgical outcomes are from surgeons who have between 5 and 20 years practical experience i.e you want to avoid the brand new surgeons but that you also want to avoid the surgeons who are over approx 50 years of age. So in a pilot context this would suggest that pilots into the right hand seat are vulnerable to make mistakes due to experience in the first 5 years but that pilots who have over 20 years of experience are also prone to mistakes and errors. So maybe arguing the experience card we should also be encouraging Captains of 20 years or more time into retirement for the good of everyone :-)
Hows the recurrent training for surgeons?

[compressor stall]

Hows the recurrent training for surgeons?

i was having that very discussion with a surgeon the other day over a beer. He said that his industry is learning a lot from aviation, I said that his industry still has a long way to go to catch aviation. He wasn’t overly enthusiastic about having a potentially career ending skills test twice a year....

[gordonfvckingramsay]

So in a pilot context this would suggest that pilots into the right hand seat are vulnerable to make mistakes due to experience in the first 5 years but that pilots who have over 20 years of experience are also prone to mistakes and errors.

All pilots are prone to mistakes, it’s experience that either traps the mistake early or recovers with finesse.

[Josh Cox]

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/336x448/alex_2_13ec6a320084d56821c81cfc67d58aee14bc7fc6.jpg
By the way, that was my Furbie.

[Captain Nomad]

In a 40+ year flying career, an incident or accident can happen at any time - the odds that somebody’s ‘Sully’ moment strikes in the first year or two of gaining those first couple of thousand hours is relatively low. While that is a good thing, it can also cloud the argument over the value of experience.

An aircraft with a couple hundred people in the back is a poor place to be spending time gaining experience to prepare for one's Sully moment... I think most of the travelling public would like to think that the guys in the front are ALREADY experienced enough to be ready for that moment...

Having said that, humility is a good thing and avoiding the hazardous attitudes associated with complacency is an ongoing challenge for the experienced.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
As been often said:" You are only as good as your last sector".
Tootle pip!!

[Gligg]

An aircraft with a couple hundred people in the back is a poor place to be spending time gaining experience to prepare for one's Sully moment... I think most of the travelling public would like to think that the guys in the front are ALREADY experienced enough to be ready for that moment...

Having said that, humility is a good thing and avoiding the hazardous attitudes associated with complacency is an ongoing challenge for the experienced.

Just to clarify - my point was that the relative absence of major events during those early years of experience is what I think clouds the argument on the value of experience. Just because you get through unscathed, doesn’t mean the risk level wasn’t higher during that time. Airbus and Boeing have done a lot to spackle experience gaps with technology,and quite successfully, but on a bad day sometimes that experience counts. Some companies devalue experience in the search for complicit or endentured/cheaper employees, and build a narrative to support it, but so does any major corporation. Doesn’t mean we have to buy into it.

[Captain Nomad]

Some companies devalue experience in the search for complicit or endentured/cheaper employees, and build a narrative to support it, but so does any major corporation. Doesn’t mean we have to buy into it.

Absolutely. And from what I have seen in recent times, most associated research is conducted with an objective of supporting such corporate narratives... It's like pharmaceuticals - who is paying for the research can make all the difference to what the findings are...