Worldwide pilot experience too low?

[luvly jubbly]

Found in USA Today.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/07/06/boeing-737-max-crash-grounded-problems-flight-training-pilots-faa/1641781001/

OK, so it’s the usual sensationalist hack job, but there is an interesting line about a meeting tomorrow regarding pilot experience levels....

”Those questions will be at the fore Monday, when a committee of the United Nations-backed body that sets international standards for air travel is scheduled to take a fresh look at pilot requirements.”
”On Monday, a committee of the International Civil Aviation Organization, a unit of the United Nations known commonly as ICAO, is scheduled to review flight-hour requirements for pilots.”

[Banana Joe]

It's a rubbish article just by reading the title. These 'Murican superpilots...

[Toolonginthisjob]

A very US-centric article. This being the important passage.
But rather than moving closer to the U.S. standard, ICAO appears to be headed toward another approach. It is more concerned with pilots' skills and demonstrated competency rather than just flight hours, perhaps ready to question whether a minimum-hour requirement is still needed. A recommendation to reduce flight hours, if one comes, would reflect a long-standing difference of philosophy.

"The U.S. went one way. The rest of the world went the other way," said Michael Wiggins, a professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.
It’s the QUALITY of training that is important. 1500 hours in a C150, over flat terrain, under clear blue skies, potentially operating from only one airfield, would be utterly meaningless, when moving to a twin (underslung?) engined, twin pilot passenger aircraft. Because that’s when the ‘learning’ starts all over again!

Notwithstanding the rather lofty (and politically motivated?) suggestion that, these accidents couldn’t possibly have happened to US pilots. Despite the fact that Captain Sullenburger says it would have probably claimed him!

[cappt]

1500 hours in a C150, over flat terrain, under clear blue skies, potentially operating from only one airfield, would be utterly meaningless, when moving to a twin pilot passenger aircraft.
Complete garbage. Suzy C150 driver has made 1500 go/no-go decisions, 1500 preflights, 1500 run-ups (more decisions) 1500 T/O's, 1500 en-routes (more decisions). Of the 1500 landings at least 25% will be crosswinds, some flights will be RTB early because of changing weather of mechanical concern (more decisions). The C150 driver will in those 1500 hours experienced shaking knees and dry mouth at least several times because of circumstances that arose unexpectdly such as, weather, mechanical, fuel concern, lost, etc. These things matter and are lessons that will never be forgotten.. I could go on about the importance of time in the saddle and how successful aviating is a continuous chain of decision making where the wrong decision could cost you your life. SIM world is wonderful but you will never kill yourself therefore you will never make life/death decisions.

[alioth]

Isn't is 80 hours to get your MPL?

[Pilot DAR]

The C150 driver will in those 1500 hours experienced shaking knees and dry mouth at least several times because of circumstances that arose unexpectdly such as, weather, mechanical, fuel concern, lost, etc. These things matter and are lessons that will never be forgotten.. I could go on about the importance of time in the saddle and how successful aviating is a continuous chain of decision making where the wrong decision could cost you your life. SIM world is wonderful but you will never kill yourself therefore you will never make life/death decisions.

Yes.

As an owner of a C150, with more than 3000 hours flying it, I was getting complacent. So I went for my helicopter license. I knew a lot about being in the sky already, but those first few solo flights in the helicopter reminded me - it's all me, no one here to fix it if I get it wrong, I am solely responsible for everything which will make this flight safe. The basic fear of getting it wrong makes one a better pilot, that fear over and over makes one better yet, even if those decisions are made while flying a lowly C150! Sure, experience should be had on multiple types, as many as possible, in varying circumstances, I'm not advocating 1000 hour in the circuit in a C150. But, hours of mundane experience flying something, solo, for real, where your decisions have absolute meaning, and you learn from the fear of the real risk of getting it wrong. Then.... you're ready to be a crew member.

[421dog]

Yes.

As an owner of a C150, with more than 3000 hours flying it, I was getting complacent. So I went for my helicopter license. I knew a lot about being in the sky already, but those first few solo flights in the helicopter reminded me - it's all me, no one here to fix it if I get it wrong, I am solely responsible for everything which will make this flight safe. The basic fear of getting it wrong makes one a better pilot, that fear over and over makes one better yet, even if those decisions are made while flying a lowly C150! Sure, experience should be had on multiple types, as many as possible, in varying circumstances, I'm not advocating 1000 hour in the circuit in a C150. But, hours of mundane experience flying something, solo, for real, where your decisions have absolute meaning, and you learn from the fear of the real risk of getting it wrong. Then.... you're ready to be a crew member.

Also as the (incidental) owner of a c-150 (as well as a 421 and a few others with (substantially more) than 3k hrs flying them all for fun and (primarily) lucre,
I would posit that 1000 hrs of flying, not when it’s mundane, but when your butt and the freight in the back, rather than a plane full of pax is on the line, (especially in the upper Midwest in the 9 mos that don’t resemble Embry-Riddle weather) would result in a better ultimate pilot.

[Intruder]

Isn't is 80 hours to get your MPL?
Depends on the program, but the ones I've seen average around 110 hours. Still WAY below the requirement for ANY Commercial or Instrument rating that I know of.

AFAIK, still no REAL path to Captain form the MPL...

[bringbackthe80s]

I can tell you from experience they have a real problem with anything turbulence/crosswinds/gusts/thermals on final. Having said that, it gets better and if they trained at a good company they are usually very switched on guys. They’re eventually same or better than anyone else. So there you go

[FlyingStone]

AFAIK, still no REAL path to Captain form the MPL...

MPL holder can after achieving 1500hrs, including 500hr PICUS (which can be done during line flying by captain signing the logbook) proceed to their ATPL skill test in the sim. If they pass, they've got exactly the same licence as any other ATPL holder, just that it is restricted to multi-pilot operations, unless further single-pilot training is done.

The article should be named "American pilots are the best".

Hours add to experience, yes. But 700hr pilot with 500hr on type will generally be better than 1501hr pilot with 1h on type.

[Rarife]

Let's be honest. There are two kinds of people who want higher hour limit. Those who had to go through that to make others suffer too and those who are in business and just want to keep others out.

[misd-agin]

Let's be honest. There are two kinds of people who want higher hour limit. Those who had to go through that to make others suffer too and those who are in business and just want to keep others out.

Let’s really be honest - there’s more than two kinds. There’s 100,000’s of thousands pilots who think having 250 hr TT large jet FO’s isn’t as safe as passengers deserve.

But the military does it. The counter-argument is -

1. check out some of their accidents and accident statistics.
2. scheduling and SOF’s limit newbies exposure. In the airline business there is none once you’re done with training.

[Intruder]

MPL holder can after achieving 1500hrs, including 500hr PICUS (which can be done during line flying by captain signing the logbook) proceed to their ATPL skill test in the sim. If they pass, they've got exactly the same licence as any other ATPL holder, just that it is restricted to multi-pilot operations, unless further single-pilot training is done.
How many have done it so far?

[Banana Joe]

How many have done it so far?
MPL is still something new, I wouldn't be surprised the first batch of MPL holders are reaching the requirements at the moment.

[CargoOne]

A CV with 1500 hrs in Cessna in Europe will be considered a joke and go straight to the trash bin. Most of pilots with that much of irrelevant experience would struggle to adopt and live up to the airline requirements, same goes for the fast jet pilots. Not what many would like to hear but true.

[gearlever]

As some users had already mentioned, it's not solely about experience on xyz aircraft(s). It's about
- psychology
- personal factors (stress management, mental strength etc.)
- Basic flying skills
- CRM
- airline training

In Europe many airlines do their own screening with 18 yr candidates direct from high school, train them by their policies and have a success rate of over 90%. Nevertheless, there are also some ready entries, but they also have to pass the screening.

This works fine with KLM, LH (Group), IB e.g.

[cappt]

MPL holder can after achieving 1500hrs, including 500hr PICUS (which can be done during line flying by captain signing the logbook) proceed to their ATPL skill test in the sim. If they pass, they've got exactly the same licence as any other ATPL holder, just that it is restricted to multi-pilot operations, unless further single-pilot training is done.

The article should be named "American pilots are the best".

Hours add to experience, yes. But 700hr pilot with 500hr on type will generally be better than 1501hr pilot with 1h on type.

Who are the lucky souls who get fly with them when they're at 300/100?

[cappt]

A CV with 1500 hrs in Cessna in Europe will be considered a joke and go straight to the trash bin. Most of pilots with that much of irrelevant experience would struggle to adopt and live up to the airline requirements, same goes for the fast jet pilots. Not what many would like to hear but true.

LOL!, management or owner of MPL school?

[ph-sbe]

The article should be named "American pilots are the best".

Hours add to experience, yes. But 700hr pilot with 500hr on type will generally be better than 1501hr pilot with 1h on type.

To qualify for an ATP, one needs:


1,500 hours of total time as a pilot that includes at least:

(1) 500 hours of cross-country flight time (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159).

(2) 100 hours of night (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) flight time (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159).

(3) 50 hours of flight time (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) in the class of airplane (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) for the rating (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) sought. A maximum of 25 hours of training in a full flight simulator (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159)representing the class of airplane (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) for the rating (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) sought may be credited toward the flight time (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) requirement of this paragraph if the training was accomplished as part of an approved training course in parts 121, 135, 141, or 142 of this chapter. A flight training device (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) or aviation training device (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) may not be used to satisfy this requirement.

(4) 75 hours of instrument (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) flight time (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159), in actual or simulated instrument (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) conditions, subject to the following:

(i) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159#a_4_ii) of this section, an applicant may not receive credit for more than a total of 25 hours of simulated instrument (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) time in a full flight simulator (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) or flight training device (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159).

(ii) A maximum of 50 hours of training in a full flight simulator (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) or flight training device (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) may be credited toward the instrument (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159)
flight time (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) requirements of paragraph (a)(4) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159#a_4) of this section if the training was accomplished in a course conducted by a training center certificated under part 142 of this chapter.

(iii) Training in a full flight simulator (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) or flight training device (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) must be accomplished in a full flight simulator (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) or flight training device (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159), representing an airplane (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159).

(5) 250 hours of flight time (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) in an airplane (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) as a pilot in command (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159), or when serving as a required second in command (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) flightcrew member (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) performing the duties of pilot in command (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) while under the supervision of a pilot in command (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159), or any combination thereof, which includes at least -

(i) 100 hours of cross-country flight time (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159); and

(ii) 25 hours of night (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) flight time (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159).

(6) Not more than 100 hours of the total aeronautical experience (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) requirements of paragraph (a) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159#a) of this section or § 61.160 may be obtained in a full flight simulator (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) or flight training device (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) provided the device represents an airplane (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159) and the aeronautical experience (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.159)was accomplished as part of an approved training course in parts 121, 135, 141, or 142 of this chapter.


So yeah, 1500 hours of a C150 won't make you qualified for an ATP.

[tomuchwork]

Controversial discussion.

Very true, I have seen many very bad cadets that get nowadays released to the line here in Europe(as an example) forcing normal line captains being more of a linetraining daddy then a Captain. On the other hand I have seen US american "lease" pilots supporting some of my former companies(90's but as well early/mid 2000's) over the busy summer period(and to enable employees to have some holidays with their families during the summer season) . Some of this "Captains" had significant troubles flying complex SID's which are quiet common here in Europe(e.g. some of the "famous" french departures out of Orly or CDG, but as well in the UK(if they do not put you immediately on radar vectors), or for instance various airports(e.g. Innsbruck, Salzburg) in the alps. This was even more complicated when soley based on conventional navigation, nowadays everybody flies the magenta line, so buhu. AFAIK departures in the US are mainly flown on (radar)headings(correct me if this is not the case anymore). If someone is not able to fly a complex SID in raw data it is barely legit to call them "best pilots"(which might apply for 90% of modern pilots to be honest).

In a nutshell. I have seen very experienced pilots being "crappy", on the other hand I had some excellent guys with only 300 hours. It all depends on the individual. Flying is not something someone can "learn"(even some P2F schools are trying to sell exactly this) - no, you need to have it in you(have it "in your ass" if you want). That is why modern aviation is in my eyes very unsafe - everyone tries, many fail, still a lot who are not supposed to make it into airliner cockpits.

The "old" system, especially here in Europe, was much better. Nearly every airline had it's own school and trained their future captains by themself, choose them from the beginning, trained them well, gave them years of experience on the left hand side along with Captains with significant experience(as well back then there where some on the LHS that did not belong there but the number was much lower). Now? Now they upgrade them with 3000 hours and a lot are just not ready.

Experience nowadays is replaced with VERY strong SOP's. The problem is - SOP cannot cover all possible problems one may experience in aviation.

[YYZjim]

Racing to the bottom.

When margins are high, a company can afford to be kind to its employees. Think of nap stations at
Google and free lunches at Facebook.

Airlines suffer from about the lowest margins in any industry. Once an SLF has decided on the class
he can afford, it is simply a matter of finding the lowest fare. Since he knows travel by air is a
horrible experience, he certainly will not want to overpay for it. (Only a handful of airlines have
a reputation that warrants a slight premium, but some of them seem to be working hard to lose
it.) In any event, fierce competition leads inexorably to the so-called race to the
bottom.

But one has to take care what motives one ascribes to airline management. Contrary to popular
belief, managers are not hatchet-wielding robots. They have kids and lives, and go on their
vacations by air. They were not born with an innate compulsion to cut costs.

It is almost certainly the case that your typical airline manager (and senior executive, too) would
like to increase training time for pilots. So why don't they just do it? The most important issue
for management is not the absolute cost of an input into their system, but the relative cost of that
input, "relative" meaning compared to their competitors. The race is not so much to the "bottom",
but to the level set out in the "rules". No manager could possibly progress in his company if he
incurred costs greater than the rules permit. If competing airlines do not have to do more than the
rules require, why should we?

Blaming the airlines is not a solution for inadequate training. The solution is to change the
rules. Surprising as it might seem, companies often don't complain (very hard, anyway) about a change in the rules, just as long as it affects their competitors equally.

Something similar is happening right now at the ICAO meetings in Montreal. Regulators from around
the world are trying to reach a consensus on minimum experience for flight crew. At present, the
only yardstick is total time. The huge benefit of using that yardstick is that it is so easy to
measure. The regulators are looking hard for a better yardstick, that takes into account the
"quality" of the hours, or the conditions under which they were earned, and so on. If the regulators
succeed, their consensus will become the new rule/bottom towards which all airlines will gravitate.

Setting new rules is a political issue, whether the rules apply at the national level or the
international level.

YYZjim

PS. A poster in a related forum described how Boeing fired a group of senior engineers, telling them
their skills weren't needed any longer because the business of making airplanes had become a mature
business. Mature businesses control their costs with care, and also race down to the rules/bottom.
In fact, that pretty much sums up the basic problem with the MAX. Boeing designed it to meet the
rules, and not one little bit more. In my opinion, Boeing is wrong to think their business is mature.
Their airplanes may produce a commodity -- air travel -- but the airplanes themselves are not a
commodity.

[Intruder]

MPL is still something new, I wouldn't be surprised the first batch of MPL holders are reaching the requirements at the moment.

I think I heard something similar about 2 years ago... Nope; sorry - it was 11 years ago!
https://www.pprune.org/interviews-jobs-sponsorship/338630-mpl-superb-system-becoming-aviator.html?highlight=MPL+upgrade

[semmern]

A CV with 1500 hrs in Cessna in Europe will be considered a joke and go straight to the trash bin. Most of pilots with that much of irrelevant experience would struggle to adopt and live up to the airline requirements, same goes for the fast jet pilots. Not what many would like to hear but true.

What a load of crock. Several of my esteemed colleagues and friends had around that number of hours when they got their jobs. No problems adjusting and living up, they are all excellent pilots. In aviation, absolutely NO experience is irrelevant, be it gliders, helicopters, light twins and whatnot. No experience at all, on the other hand, is where it gets interesting. The most dangerous time in a pilot’s career is when he or she has 3-800 hours or thereabouts, because you think you’re starting to get on top of things, but really, you have a very limited idea of what’s going on.

Myself, I had around 1200 hours when I got my job on the 737. Around 500 hours instructing in 172s, a couple of hundred instructing in Cubs and Tiger Moths, and the rest larking about in the Cub, Moth and various other ancient aerial contraptions. Would not have gone without that experience for any amount of money. That includes partial power loss due to a stuck valve, fuel leak, nearly spinning in from low altitude due to miscommunication wih a student, and so on. One day, some tiny part of it just might stand me in good steed when Murphy comes to visit. Oh, and nobody has yet complained about me not adapting or living up ;)

[hans brinker]

To qualify for an ATP, one needs:



So yeah, 1500 hours of a C150 won't make you qualified for an ATP.

CMIIAW/AFAIK you can do a ASEL ATP ride in FAA land. If that is still the case, (and I didn't see complex aircraft is required) you can get an ATP with 1400TT C150 + 100 Frasca.

[Bus Driver Man]

...I have seen very experienced pilots being "crappy", on the other hand I had some excellent guys with only 300 hours. It all depends on the individual. Flying is not something someone can "learn"(even some P2F schools are trying to sell exactly this) - no, you need to have it in you(have it "in your ass" if you want). That is why modern aviation is in my eyes very unsafe - everyone tries, many fail, still a lot who are not supposed to make it into airliner cockpits...

...Experience nowadays is replaced with VERY strong SOP's. The problem is - SOP cannot cover all possible problems one may experience in aviation.
The result of a high demand to fill the empty seats in the front combined with flight schools where maximum profit is more important than quality.
In my opinion, it’s not the worldwide pilot experience which is too low, it’s the worldwide quality which is too low. Cadets, FOs, captains, training quality, ...
The length of training and it’s quality is reduced to the bare minimum required to save costs.

I've done 2 full type ratings for the same type in the last 12 years and the second time, it consisted of about half of the sim sessions from the first type rating (different company). The other half of the sim sessions were replaced by a procedure trainer which looked like Microsoft Flight Simulator with touchscreens, focusing on procedures and automation. The first type rating had only 3 sessions in a procedure trainer and all the rest was in a FFS. That must have been too expensive for my current company, where I can see a strong dependence on procedures and automation to compensate for the lower level of experience and training.

[yoko1]

Beyond a certain point, hours are a poor proxy for measuring quality and experience. Some pilots stop learning at 100 hours, and some never stop learning. Trying to figure out which is which probably requires more effort than most hiring departments wish to give.

[giggitygiggity]

AFAIK, still no REAL path to Captain form the MPL...

My airline started the MPL in around 2011, first few guys are getting their commands on the A320 now.

[misd-agin]

Who are the lucky souls who get fly with them when they're at 300/100?

The resumes of the recent accidents seem to indicate the FO's started flying 737's with very low time.

News reports have the Ethiopian FO with 361 hrs TT and 207 hrs in the 737. That meant he started flying the 737 with 154 hrs TT. From wikipedia "The first officer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_officer_(aeronautics)), Ahmed Nur Mohammod Nur, 25, was a recent graduate from the airline's academy with 361 flight hours logged, including 207 hours on the Boeing 737."

[misd-agin]

[QUOTE=tomuchwork;10513247]Controversial discussion.
. This was even more complicated when soley based on conventional navigation, nowadays everybody flies the magenta line, so buhu. AFAIK departures in the US are mainly flown on (radar)headings(correct me if this is not the case anymore). If someone is not able to fly a complex SID in raw data it is barely legit to call them "best pilots"(which might apply for 90% of modern pilots to be honest). [QUOTE}

The majority are radar vectors. But it's not uncommon to fly RNP or SIDs that have turns, climbs, and restrictions on them in the U.S. LGA, DCA, LAX, DFW, ATL, all have non radar vector departures. Those are some of the busiest U.S. airports. Add in S. America, Europe, or Asia flying and having to fly SIDs or RNP departures is something U.S. line pilots see often enough.

[flyingmed]

Who are the lucky souls who get fly with them when they're at 300/100?

I am one of those "lucky souls". Some of these low hour pilots are brilliant, they seem to be on top on their game and you wouldn't know how inexperienced they are unless you asked. At the same time there are a few which you might want to give a boarding pass for 1A as they don't have a clue! The worst part is some airlines in Europe regularly promote first officers with 3000 hours, which is 3-3.5 years experience, then fly with a first officer with 300 hours. Although that is very low experience, from what I've seen its the long term first officers that you have to be careful of, there's usually a reason they are still in the right hand seat!
Unfortunately most airlines do not train to competency now days, they train to certification. As long as they have the legal paperwork they don't care.

[ferry pilot]

Better airplanes don’t make better pilots. No amount of training can make up for the experience you don’t get when nothing goes wrong, or the lack of essential cool when it does.Some people should not be pilots, just as some should not be policemen or politicians, and in an industry that can no longer pick and choose, technology has to prevail sooner rather than later. The airplanes, in spite of the current MCAS problem, keep improving, as the quality and quantity of pilots falls behind. We have not hit a homer since the Hudson, and that may have been the last inning of a bygone era. Strange as it may seem, the day you can’t tell a good pilot from a mediocre one is the day the airplane goes solo.

[capngrog]

I have followed the various threads concerning pilot competence with interest, although I'm just a low time non transport pilot used to be. It's my impression that many jurisdictions are now qualifying first officers with MPL training and that the MPL is based mostly on procedures and simulator time, with as little as 30-40 hours in a primary trainer cockpit. I guess this fits in with the new class of transport category aircraft that are highly automated; however, I wonder if such training gives the student any "feel" for an aircraft and its very delicate balancing act called "flight". I've been searching the internet for information on the MPL and encountered this on the AviationKnowledge website:"Highlights of MPL""The Multi-Crew Pilot License programme can produce co-pilot in 240 hours, of which 210 hours is in simulators.
This training programme can be completed in 45 weeks as compared to 18 months to 2 years in the current existing system.
Introduced in late 2006, Multi-Crew Pilot License, has been driven to success by the cost and speed effectiveness."

I also found this rather interesting quote on the Patria website:

"In MPL training actual flight hours will be complemented with high quality simulation training in the A320 cockpit environment. Flying has become more and more flight management and MPL addresses directly to these issues."

Are we now training up a generation of "flight managers" whose skill set is comprised primarily of button pushing, knob twisting and occasional lever displacement?

Cheers,
Grog

[Tomaski]

I think it is very important to make a distinction here between technical knowledge and that fuzzy thing that is sometimes called “airmanship.” Given the right person, I don’t think that it would be that hard to make a low time pilot reasonably proficient in the relatively narrow set of tasks that are required for a particular aircraft type and a particular operation. As long as everything goes according to script and the problems fits within whatever has been anticipated and covered in the manual then they’ll probably do fine when crewed with an experienced Captain. I see two potential problems. When that Captain himself has issues (these guys are out there), then the low-time FO may not know enough to know the Captain is having issues. He may just think the guy has a few quirks and doesn’t feel comfortable speaking up. I think some of this may have come into play with the Ethiopian crash. Next, flying doesn’t always go according to the script, and when you get off script it may not be obvious what the answer is. It has been said that good judgment comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgement. In the old days, a newish pilot would go out and excercise just enough bad judgement to hopefully gain some valuable experience and would do so in something that wasn’t carrying 100+ passengers. What I’m saying is no matter how well you know the aircraft, procedures, or regulations, there is always an element of knowledge that simply comes from doing the job for a number of years.

[boofhead]

You are right on. (Rarife #11). I can identify only one group that benefits from the 1500 hour rule in the US and that is the senior pilots at ALPA who are adept at lobbying Congress (that passed the law concerned). I assume they wanted to make themselves more valuable (and get more money as a result) by tightening up the supply. I hope they did not mean it to go this far but it has and the damage is far-reaching and extensive. As usual, the supply of pilots will be cyclic and because the rise in demand has been meteoric, the drop will also be such. As so many smaller companies go bankrupt there will suddenly be no jobs.

It might be a good time to enter the field, but if so, better be quick!

[ironbutt57]

A CV with 1500 hrs in Cessna in Europe will be considered a joke and go straight to the trash bin. Most of pilots with that much of irrelevant experience would struggle to adopt and live up to the airline requirements, same goes for the fast jet pilots. Not what many would like to hear but true.

that 1500 hour pilot may very well have a lot of " raw" experience not garnered by the zero-to-hero pilots of airlines today....

[ironbutt57]

MPL holder can after achieving 1500hrs, including 500hr PICUS (which can be done during line flying by captain signing the logbook) proceed to their ATPL skill test in the sim. If they pass, they've got exactly the same licence as any other ATPL holder, just that it is restricted to multi-pilot operations, unless further single-pilot training is done.

The article should be named "American pilots are the best".

Hours add to experience, yes. But 700hr pilot with 500hr on type will generally be better than 1501hr pilot with 1h on type.


I wouldn't bet on that, the "modern" euro-style of zero-to-hero has put lots of pilots in flight decks that can read checklists and do memory items...their ability to physically wrestle an errant aircraft, or sort their way through a problem that was not of a part of their curriculum is another matter...AF 442 classic example

[Tomaski]

I wouldn't bet on that, the "modern" euro-style of zero-to-hero has put lots of pilots in flight decks that can read checklists and do memory items...their ability to physically wrestle an errant aircraft, or sort their way through a problem that was not of a part of their curriculum is another matter...AF 442 classic example

Absolutely agree

[Centaurus]

Then you have a recently graduated Cessna 172 trained cadet now in the right hand seat of a twin jet transport nervously saying to his captain "I don't like flying in cloud" as they fly through cirrus. And to think he is second in command of a big jet transport. If the captain has an "event" and keels over, it doesn't take much imagination to guess what happens to the aircraft.

Fortunately statistics are kind to them both.

[dr dre]

I wouldn't bet on that, the "modern" euro-style of zero-to-hero has put lots of pilots in flight decks that can read checklists and do memory items...their ability to physically wrestle an errant aircraft, or sort their way through a problem that was not of a part of their curriculum is another matter...AF 442 classic example

I think you mean AF447, but wasn’t it two American pilots with previous light aircraft “real flying experience” who did the exact same thing on Colgan 3407....?

[hans brinker]

I think you mean AF447, but wasn’t it two American pilots with previous light aircraft “real flying experience” who did the exact same thing on Colgan 3407....?

So from memory, CMIIAW, the captain had between 3K and 5K experience yes. More importantly however, he had failed pretty much every check ride available, failed upgrade, lied about those failures to get hired at Colgan, and continued to fail there. Should never have been in the cockpit of an airline. The FO really didn't help, but I feel it was mostly this PIC who caused the crash. Just because you have kept a 172 aloft for a few thousand hours doesn't guarantee you are airline material. Selection, preferably early in the training should be strict. One of the reasons IMNSHO the military is successful is not just their training but the failure rate before and during training: if you are not good enough you will not get your wings. Hiring everyone with 1500+ hours is just as st@pid as hiring everyone with €200K.

[pineteam]

It’s true proper training is more important than hours. But the fact that European carriers have a good safety record is also probably due to the fact that you have it fairly easy in term of weather, very good ATC/facility compare to Asia/Africa for example.

[CargoOne]

Why are you referencing Africa if the buzz here is exactly about US vs Europe? How does Jet Blue record compares to Easy and Southwest to Ryanair? Can anyone demonstrate how 1500 rule have helped US airlines compared to their European counterparts who ALL using low time first officers?

[pineteam]

Sorry I thought the buzz was more about 1500hr vs 200hr. xD

[CargoOne]

It is but the same time it is really about US vs EU, who cares about others? ;)

[FlyingStone]

While every continent has its own specifics, I wouldn't say Europe is the easiest place to fly. Weather can be extreme on both ends of the temperature scale, whereas one hardly ever sees icy in Africa I imagine. As for the ATC, there are many places in Africa (and not only SA) that would be considered world class compared to the excellent service we see in Spain.

[Pilot DAR]

It’s true proper training is more important than hours.

For my considerable experience as both a student and a trainer in airplanes, I have noticed that a new pilot's receptiveness to learning is like a sponge, but backward. If you pour water (the training) over a brand new sponge (the student's brain), a lot of it rolls off, rather than being absorbed. As the student becomes more familiar with simply being airborne, the sounds, the tasks, and unusual attitudes and events, they can absorb at retain more training and experience. I have found that the pilot with a few hundred hours of experience in a 150, or otherwise simple, poorly equipped airplane, has opened up their learning sponge considerably, and is ready to learn more, and understand how, and when to apply it. I trained a 7000 hour airline pilot in his new taildragger. As he slid the plane all over the runway as I took over to avert a groundloop, he was obviously overwhelmed. New type, with no idea what to expect, so he did not absorb what was happening. It was only when I turned around to backtrack, and showed him the S shaped skid marks he had left, that he began to get it - his sponge opened up to receive more learning. It would have been too late in real time, but when he was able to catch up, he could absorb more - then, he began to be ready to learn tailwheel. That was his fifth hour flying tailwheel with me, he had to have the bad experience to understand what he was learning. Happily, aside from a bit of spent rubber, it was otherwise safe.

A very new pilot trained in a DA-20 will have mastered more of the plane and its capabilities in its intended operating environment in 100 hours, than that same very new pilot put directly into a DA-42. After the first 100 hours in either type, the pilot of the DA-20 will be safer in the DA-20, than the DA-42 pilot would be in the DA-42, simply because the DA-20 is simple, as its operating environment, and flying it will afford the new pilot the opportunity for settling into the environment before complicating it. With that 100 hours in a simple type, they'll be much more ready for the DA-42, because they can devote much more of their learning attention to differences, not still building basics - their learning sponge is more receptive to holding more knowledge, rather than that knowledge overflowing the sponge.

Learning piloting is very much a stepping stone process. Yes, you can take a direct entry MPL candidate and have them right seat in a jet in a 100 hours, but it is certain that their personal learning sponge has not yet opened up. There are things that they still need to learn. Maybe they learn them quickly enough, on rare occasions, we read that a skill was not as well developed as we hope.

Yeah, the 1500 hour 172 pilot is over qualified in a light single, and if they have the slightest aptitude toward piloting, their personal learning sponge is really ready to absorb lots more. They will need more type and operating environment training, but the basics of piloting will be solidly ingrained in them, and will be "unconscious competence" for their piloting skills for the rest of their career. The 300 hour MPL right seat jet pilot may have achieved "conscious competence" but they have yet to achieve "unconscious competence", and worse, right seat in a jet flying scheduled routes is a slow way to learn, compared to other piloting environments - I hear they use autopilots and autothrottles a lot!

A pilot with 1000+ hours in whatever simple plane is easier to validate for higher training, and will likely accomplish it sooner, because that experience has given them a sound, maybe even excess, basis for learning, their personal learning sponge is open to learn more.

[Centaurus]

Clearly it's working in Europe because if it didn't there would be many more incidents
The full ATC radar coverage and GPS availability, put together with superb sophistication of todays automatic pilots, makes the flying environment much safer for the low hour airline co-pilot. It is only when the rare moment where the chips are down that it would be nice to have someone with good experience in the RH seat .

[boofhead]

Training is good, and necessary of course. Not everyone will respond the same way; some will really try to understand the training and store it in their brain as well as be able to pull that knowledge out when required. unfortunately, many pay only a superficial attention and do not retain much of that training. I see that as common nowadays with multi choice tests, all the student wants is to pass the test, not to learn the subject. However that is not restricted to newbies.

However experience is at least as important as training, in my own opinion it is much more important indeed essential. Even if the person knows nothing about what goes on in the electronics bay or hydraulic system, he will see what happens when he moves that switch or lever and build on that experience. Experience makes the difference between a trained and a competent pilot. Which one would you like to have sitting up front when you go on a flight, especially if the conditions are tough?

When all the flight crews are inexperienced (that will happen when the current crop of senior pilots retire at age 65 and is happening as we speak), how do the newbies get their experience? Who is going to mentor them, help them understand what they are seeing and how to handle the things that are not in the books? Picture the last two 737MAX accidents, and how different those would have turned out if the pilots had had experience of trim problems, either in the sim or in an airplane? And we, as pilots, are remarkably inventive when it comes time to find things to screw up.

Sure experience in a C172 is good, but it is not a replacement for the experience of a couple of thousand hours flying as crew in a B777, handling problems, learning when to start slowing down for the approach, how to handle an ATC delay on descent, how to save fuel when on a long flight and been held down due to traffic, how to cajole a better clearance, how to recognizer and fly severe turbulence or penetrate a thunderstorm without radar or any one of thousands of situations that are not covered in training.

Lets face it; the pilot you want to see up front has grey hair, a few lines on his face and a scruffy appearance. He (or she in some circumstances) will have experience. He cannot get that from a book, or a computer. He got it by doing the job. If he was a real pilot he would have been passing on what he knew to his copilot, giving that guy landings, approaches, some difficult decisions to make, and helping him/her to be ready to take over when it was time to give it up.

But now we have a huge hole in experience. The guys at the top are only (seemingly) interested in maximizing their income in their last few years before being forced to retire, and the ones coming up are so junior they do not understand what could be passed on to them, being solely interested in taking advantage of the opportunity to get something for free and without any effort on their part. They don't understand the importance of what they are seeing and lack the experience to pay attention. It frightens me to think that when the baton is passed, the commanders of those magic ships of the air will be so ignorant and unready, and mostly totally unaware that they are not ready because they did not get the chance to learn from those who could have taught them.

Without skill and experience we will become just the same as what we see now in those countries that have the money to buy airplanes and airlines but do not have the experienced pilots to fly them.

[Busdriver01]

Of all the clap trap that’s been written on this site, this is by far and away the most outrageous bit of literary faeces I’ve ever seen. To claim that those coming through the ranks now are “taking advantage”, that they “want something for free and without any effort” is so disingenuous it shouldn’t really warrant a reply.

Those coming through the ranks now are going about it the only way they see possible, and paying a great deal for it. They are a product of corporate greed from the generation that went before them - those that claim to be the last remaining sky gods. Coincidentally, ​​​​​​these sky gods are also the ones who willingly volunteer anecdotes of drunken nights downroute followed immediately by a long slog across the Atlantic on oxygen to sober up.

European airlines have been successfully taking 250hr wonder pilots and putting them in jets for decades. Not just locos, but legacy carriers too. Most of the current senior training standards captains at the big British airline were such cadets, now flying intercontinental to the very places some have described as more difficult than Europe.

[421dog]

Well, MOSTLY successfuly....Except for the ones that died...

[flyzed]

Well, MOSTLY successfuly.
...Except for the ones that died...

Exactly, sounds very realistic

[421dog]

Really.
Hoping people realize that time spent in an airplane in “peril” with valuable freight, but non-humans in the back, and a very real human pilot in the front, who is not dead, and who has no interest in assuming that status, and who spends his flight time learning to be “less close to being dead” preliminaralliy by manageing systems which want to slide out of line clandestinely while said pilot is listening to Art Bell, and playing fingerpaints with the St Elmo’s fire on the plexiglass, (biggest prepositional phrase I’ve ever attempted), is infinitely superior to anything somebody comes up with in a sim.

A pilot gets dead over the wilds of northern somewhere, does himself and his $150k C402 in, and there are a few packages that need to be accounted for.

He does that for 1500 hrs, doesn’t get dead, passes his ATP ride, and I think he’s ready for a right seat.

not really a simulator or part 142 program that’s gonna get you there...

[safetypee]

Experience is the knowledge or mastery of a subject gained through involvement in or exposure to it, generally referring to know-how rather than know-what; i.e. on-the-job learning opposed to book, class, learning.

Experience relates specific activity; aviation, flying, particularly context. That which a person is expected to be exposed to and how to react. This depends on role, task, and situation; and that any future need is a judgement - a forecast of the level of interaction in role, task, and situation.
Flying hours alone do not constitute experience, it’s the content of those hours and retention of that knowledge and skill, and transference of these across types and operations which are important. Also, a mindset never to stop learning.

The opening views in the thread is blatant hindsight bias. Similarly discussion of individual accidents, which can only conclude that the level of experience, or its application was insufficient for that particular situation.
Focus on individuals is again in hindsight, fundamental attribution error, unwarranted blame.

These views should not be used as a basis of training and levels of experience; pilots rarely encounter the same accident, situations do not repeat exactly. Thus the greater need is for experience in judging different situations, the unusual, not trained for events, and have flexibly in acting. Modern experience is more associated with agility of thought, awareness, opposed to physical skills.

Current levels of experience differ from previous; the issue is not that future operations will require same level, content, or quality, but that the combined crew experience should be sufficient for the situations crew’s are expected to manage.
Forecasting future challenges is difficult, Generic experience and skills could help. However it may be easier to limit the extreme situations that crews could encounter, with technical and operational improvements; and not to expect too much from the human contribution in an increasingly complex world.

[capngrog]

I don't understand what all the discussion (quality/quantity of experience, sim time etc.) is about since in the VERY near future, there will be no need for pilots at all in transport category aircraft. The technology already exists, but the biggest hurdle to implementation is SLF acceptance. Well, there might be a computer tech located somewhere on the aircraft to trouble shoot various systems glitches who will be able to set things right with just a few clicks of a mouse or the pushing of a few buttons. There will be no windows provided for the tech since there would be no need for him/her to interact with the physical world. Can you imagine that, controlling a large transport category aircraft by just manipulating a few buttons and knobs and not looking out the window? Oh wait ....

Cheers, I think,

[boofhead]

Of all the clap trap that’s been written on this site, this is by far and away the most outrageous bit of literary faeces I’ve ever seen. To claim that those coming through the ranks now are “taking advantage”, that they “want something for free and without any effort” is so disingenuous it shouldn’t really warrant a reply.

Those coming through the ranks now are going about it the only way they see possible, and paying a great deal for it. They are a product of corporate greed from the generation that went before them - those that claim to be the last remaining sky gods. Coincidentally, ​​​​​​these sky gods are also the ones who willingly volunteer anecdotes of drunken nights downroute followed immediately by a long slog across the Atlantic on oxygen to sober up.

European airlines have been successfully taking 250hr wonder pilots and putting them in jets for decades. Not just locos, but legacy carriers too. Most of the current senior training standards captains at the big British airline were such cadets, now flying intercontinental to the very places some have described as more difficult than Europe.



I see it. I live it. I train these guys and I see their progression. I know what the airlines are offering and paying for their services. The experience level has dropped precipitously. Youngsters are getting command years before they would have before the shortage happened. Some of my students of just a few years back are now captains on jets carrying 80 to 150 passengers and there is no way they know as much as their counterparts of years past. And their attitude is what I say in many cases. I get calls from 500 hour pilots with brand new certificates who only want to know what I will pay them to come and show me how good they are. Qualifications? Forget about it. Yes there are many great candidates out there and they will do well, I know because I employ some of them, but most want instant gratification and are not prepared to wait or work for it. Good for them if they get that dream job but not so good for the industry if the accident rates go too high as a result. I get the airline safety reviews every day and I can see a trend. Can't you?

[421dog]

Truly, I drive or fly myself whenever it’s feasible. I have zero faith in the average CRJ driver, which is about all we have around here.
The best pilot I know, (USAF ex-f-16, 15 and U-2 ) flies professionally for a big US company with a penchant for 737s, and vociferiously doesn’t consider what he does for a living “flying”. He says company SOP adds nothing to his ability to meet a “generic challenge”, should such arise, and that flying his private planes as well as the warbirds he has access to are what keeps him sharp.

[fdr]

Safety of an operation is dependent on multiple variables, of which crew competency is a factor. Routinely airlines will operate with a zero experience pilot in line training, with or without a safety pilot dependent on the local rules. That is not going to change, at least in this universe, people start at the beginning and add experience.

Mitigation of the risks of low experience or assumed limited competency comes from increased oversight, more restrictive operational limits, and adding good equipment and hopefully some balance of limited experience with pilots that have a modicum of experience but more importantly competency. Irrespective of how well or inadequate the original training and experience was, the majority of the operational learning will occur on line, where there is experiential reinforcement of hopefully remembered concepts and rules.

For basic flying required to fly a hi capacity RPT aircraft in a mature airline, you can consider the basics that exist out of the military training program, and remove the tactical stuff in the most part. Out of a 230-250 hr flight training program, around 150 hrs of that is related to "flight training", the rest is focused towards military centric stuff, formation, low flying, aerobatics, and initial weapons training, which add to the total competency, but are focused outside of the most basic civil task. Out of 150 hrs, the first 20 odd hours are gaining basic flight skills, getting around in a semblance of order from TO to LDG. The rest is related to learning instrument flying skills, navigation, and becoming comfortable in night operations. We are accepting of a minuscule amount of time in learning to fly multi engine aircraft, and in all honesty, for the most part that time is wasted, the concepts and skills of ME are pretty basic. As an industry since inception we have accepted new pilots being turned around immediately to train new pilots, was ever thus. In the main, these instructors do a creditable job, but it is inherently a lousy concept, but it is what we have always accepted as a norm. The use of simulators has the potential to be a better way of learning, and also it may result in considerable lack of confidence in the student, which can come back and bite. Incorporating basic flight training to beyond solo, simulator, and some advanced flying to give confidence would be a reasonable way to get a pilot into a program with multi crew and oversight that can manage the low experience. That is pretty close to the concept of the MPL.

Centaurus' concern of the new low experience pilot sitting solo in the front end as the old guy, like Centaurus and me have croaked defines the basic level of competency that needs to be assured to have the low time pilot sit in the aircraft without any other assistance.

I believe we need training that speaks more to the actual task the pilot will undertake, appropriate level of supervision, and associated operational limitations that maintain safety of operation. That is more or less the same issue that has existed since 1903, WWI, WW2, 10,000 day war, etc... the only difference is that we continue to improve the training tools that exist, but as always, effective utilisation of the tools lags technology as the rules move at glacial speed. Personally, I would not take issue to competent instructors teaching the majority of sim training in FBT (for nav and procedures including IF), and using FFS for limited tasks related to pattern work, unusual attitudes and similar tasks. Decision making, CRM etc, and much NNCL training is suited to PTT/FBT. For the aircraft flying itself, fly one of the modern LSA's, they outperform most "complex" aircraft and are cost effective, or stay with a 150, or better yet, put the J3 back into production. For advanced flying, strap on an S2A/C or similar. For twin training, it is a part of the FFS, and would give more rational training safer than we do today in a PA30/34 and similar.

There is not a lack of skills or training, there is a lack of imagination and effective resource use.

[Jim_A]

While all the above are good points, commercial aviation continues to be safer than just about any form of transportation. The cynic in me says there is an "acceptable" hull loss rate, and as long as fatalities remain below a certain level there will not be much motivation to make any changes that will cost a lot of money in terms of pilot hiring or training.

[Propellerpilot]

I personally think working oneself up the ranks from simple, more hands on aircraft makes the more comperent and experienced pilot.

However, having talked to certification staff and test pilots a few years ago, manufacturers are developing their modern aircraft in such a way, that the product is designed so that it can take a maximum amount of bad technique, bad decisions and beatings of the two "monkeys" sitting up in front, to make up and prevent hull loss at any cost by developing technolgy to counteract human error. This allowed low experienced pilots to slip through and low cost MPL concepts for airliners to function, as the machine and SOP would compensate for short-comings.

This seemed to work very well with the one or other exception. And now the 737 Max came along with a failed system, that was an intended further step in automation development - so that they did not even consider training the pilots for the system. A catastrophic failure.

So it remains pretty philosophical - but probably serves best to have both worlds: competent pilots in state of the art engineered aircraft.

In Europe it has become rare because GA is being politically strangled out of existence by every means possible and a narrowbody airliner is usually the only piece of equipment availiable for a 200hr MPL pilot to start on, with only a few exotic exeptions.

[Pilot DAR]

but probably serves best to have both worlds: competent pilots in state of the art engineered aircraft.

Yes but.... This objective describes aircraft of increasing complexity (perhaps to compensate for a reduction in some basic pilot skills), and pilots meeting the skill level of "competent" for that aircraft. It does not describe an excess of skill for the aircraft, just competent. That may be okay nearly all the time, but the more narrow gap between competence and aircraft complexity can also have more criticality if breached. The pilots must realize that they are not flying with an excess of competence to possibly be applied to overcome a problem, they may have to draw on every bit of the skill they were trained, and at just the right moment in a stressful situation. They may not be relying on muscle memory to handle the basics, when when of the more complex systems fails, and they are left with the combination of simple and complex problems all at once.

It takes me back to the decades old urban legend of the man who was given excess salesmanship on all the features of the motorhome he bought, without truly understanding them, nor their limitations. Once on the road, he put the cruise control on, and went to the back to make coffee. The more we have automation, and complex labour/skill saving systems, the more the pilot must recognize that, and the limitations of those systems. If the systems have absolutely no limitations, I guess we don't need the pilots anymore - and I will stop riding in airliners!

[Tomaski]

I personally think working oneself up the ranks from simple, more hands on aircraft makes the more comperent and experienced pilot.



Generally agree with one caveat. Depending on the nature and quality of early years training, a pilot can pick up some bad habits that may be hard to erase later on. One reason prior military pilots are favored by airlines is that you have a better idea of what you’re getting as opposed to a pilot who has passed through airlines A, B, & C. Ab initio training at least has the the distinction of providing a consistent and controlled environment, but hours in the classroom/sim still doesn’t replicate the real world. What I’m am saying is that pilot competency is a combination of good technical training and experience, but more of the first doesn’t make up for less of the second.

[Consol]

Flown with a few MPLs on the A320 and found them fine, no issues at all. Flew with a few graduates of P2F outfits in Eastern Europe and Indonesia, I frankly wouldn't leave the cockpit and I made sure to use the lav during the turnaround to ensure this is how it would be.

[glofish]

While all the above are good points, commercial aviation continues to be safer than just about any form of transportation. The cynic in me says there is an "acceptable" hull loss rate, and as long as fatalities remain below a certain level there will not be much motivation to make any changes that will cost a lot of money in terms of pilot hiring or training.
No need to be a cynic, just ask the Boeing finance department about how many fatalities it takes to annihilate the penny pinching in manufacturing aircraft and pilot quality/training.
The chicken finally comes home to roost.
Flown with a few MPLs on the A320 and found them fine, no issues at all. Flew with a few graduates of P2F outfits in Eastern Europe and Indonesia, I frankly wouldn't leave the cockpit and I made sure to use the lav during the turnaround to ensure this is how it would be.
It's all about assessing candidates. MPLs are mostly assessed because they are subsidised by interested airline parties, thus a certain initial quality and sane motivation is guaranteed. P2Fs basically skip assessment because they are subsidised by sheik- or mogul daddies, quality and genuine motivation do not really matter. The cheap side of the industry likes that, someone else is doing the necessary investment for their personnel. Quality is secondary, as long as the broad public does not connect accidents with the above, they can get away with it.

[capngrog]

What I’m am saying is that pilot competency is a combination of good technical training and experience, but more of the first doesn’t make up for less of the second.

Well said, Tomaski.

My concern is that new pilots are not being taught airmanship, and as a consequence do not acquire a feel for or an understanding of the delicate balancing act which is flying. Perhaps memory of the Asiana 214 crash at SFO in 2013 is too prominent in the remnants of my brain. Oh, and then there is Colgan Air/Continental Connection 3407 and ...

[Mac the Knife]

In surgery, as in flying, it is possible to train people to do two or three things very well indeed. With pressures towards ever increasing specialisation they may never do anything else, and have a CMG and a vast reputation at the end of their career.

Naturally, it is possible to train them to do these two or three things quite quickly. New Consultants now have about the same age and experience as the newly appointed Senior Registrar of old. The demand for perfect results has led to early superspecialisation (read automation if you will).

The difference is that previously, Senior Registrars would have five or more years experience before getting a Consultant appointment. When a young Consultant today meets an unexpected situation s/he is far less likely to be able to deal with it adequately than the Consultants of old.

[boofhead]

Of all the clap trap that’s been written on this site, this is by far and away the most outrageous bit of literary faeces I’ve ever seen. To claim that those coming through the ranks now are “taking advantage”, that they “want something for free and without any effort” is so disingenuous it shouldn’t really warrant a reply.

Those coming through the ranks now are going about it the only way they see possible, and paying a great deal for it. They are a product of corporate greed from the generation that went before them - those that claim to be the last remaining sky gods. CoincCompare that with what is happening now. Anyone who can breathe and has 1500 hours on anything (or 700 hours on a helicopter if he is Army trained) is guaranteed a job immediately without even having to apply. One buddy of mine is 59 years old and they still want him, even though he has no multi engine time or an ATP (We will pay for all that! Just get here!)
I don't wonder if the present crop of wannabees is a little arrogant and spoiled; I would be!


How would you like to be sitting in the back when he does his first command flight, with a FO who is a product of the current training system and has never flown an airplane with passengers in it before?

[Judd]

Anyone who can breathe and has 1500 hours on anything (or 700 hours on a helicopter if he is Army trained) is guaranteed a job immediately without even having to apply

I don't know what country you are writing about but it certainly is not Australia unless maybe it is crocodile country up north. While there is much touted world wide shortage of pilots, those claims emanate from aircraft manufacturers rather than from established airlines. Cathay Pacific for example are knocking back significant numbers of experienced overseas pilots because (the company claims) the standards are so low.

[misd-agin]

How would you like to be sitting in the back when he does his first command flight, with a FO who is a product of the current training system and has never flown an airplane with passengers in it before?

When's his first command flight? Five years after he gets hired? His new FO? How many hours of IOE/LOE with a CKA will he have had before he starts flying with regular line Captains? 30 hrs? 50 hrs? 100 hrs?

It's not like they take a new hire, give him his ATP, MEL, and type rating and make him a Captain and send him out with an FO that hasn't flown with a CKA for their first 30-100 hrs.

In the U.S., as long as it's not a new fleet type, one of the pilots has to have 100 hrs in type.

[boofhead]

An effective pilot needs training, understanding, knowledge, skill and experience. Some of these factors (if above average) can make up for deficiencies in the others but mostly I would say skill and experience are the most important and those are the ones a new pilot cannot get from reading a book or listening to a briefing or watching videos on Utube. We are losing, through attrition, the ones that do have the right stuff and replacing them with those who have only a superficial understanding of what the job requires. I don't have to be Nostradamus to predict the results.

[Loose rivets]

Fear. Have we had a post about fear?

I based the opening chapter of my novel on an experience I had as a Viscount FO. I did not know it was possible to experience that much fear, especially for nearly two hours. No weather radar and FL170 or 180 most of the early IT's to Spain. Lots of learning to be had, and mostly okay, but just one night for me was beyond belief. Horizon bar off the scenes time and again, and below MSL over the mountains, then to be thrown out the tops to the stars only to fall back into the maelstrom. 45mins on one 20 min leg. Blood and sick down the cabin ceiling where the poor souls had unstrapped to kneel and pray.

The return flight turned out to have a very funny end, despite a 4" hole through the wing. The skipper had just struck his Zippo when the bang happened. His face, lit by the little flame, was a picture I'll never forget.

I had to give myself a serious talking to to carry on. All that work, can't give that up now! Had to master the fear and channel it into concentration when things got tacky. Really, it's not fair expecting these 'Children' to be put in the position of a captain incapacitation without some awareness of what it might be like to get a real thrashing one 'dark and stormy'. They need at least an awareness.

[Centaurus]

Really, it's not fair expecting these 'Children' to be put in the position of a captain incapacitation without some awareness of what it might be like to get a real thrashing one 'dark and stormy'. They need at least an awareness.Agree wholeheartedly. One way which is better than nothing is during type rating training in the simulator. Most simulators have various amounts of turbulence built into their fidelity. The Boeing 737 simulator we operate has quite alarming turbulence available which is very rarely used because no simulator syllabus calls for it.
Five minutes in the simulator of hand flying in a selection of moderate to severe turbulence is all that is needed for cadet pilots to learn the instrument flying skill needed to cope with severe turbulence. Motion sickness is likely so common sense and care needs to be applied by the instructor not to overdo it.

[whistling turtle]

There's no substitute for experience. I did several years instructing on singles and light twins VFR and IFR, aerobatics instructing and aerial photography.
Aside from handling skills it gives you captaincy skills from day one. You have no one else to help you or rely on except yourself when a difficult situation crops up or a go/no go decision has to be made. Also you often don't have the system redundancy as in pax jets with GA aircraft often being quite old so comms failures, flaps locked, engine problems and other types of situations happened from time to time. Sometimes coupled with poor weather.
So to say 1500 hours instructing in the circuit is useless is a bit naive really.
When I moved into the airlines and it came up in conversation with Captains they always said that they saw something was lacking from the guys coming directly from flight school in comparison.