Better experience, Flight Instruction or S/O?

[scubabri]

Which do you think you get better experience from, flight instruction or being a second officer.

Personally, I believe that more relivent experience for low time pilots can be gained in the right seat than just the empty hours flying around the patch or in the practice area with a student.

Why would someone want to hire a flight instructor with 1250 hours as apposed to a 250 hour newly minted commercial pilot, and train them in the way best suited to the job?

Brian

[jarjam]

Scubabri,
"Why would an airline want to hire an instructor with 1250 hrs rather than a newly minted CPL with 250hrs"

As one of the above mentioned Instructors let me enlighten you and I shall try not to be patronising.
With your shiney CPL despite what your FTO may have told you,
you realy dont have much of a clue about flying aeroplanes at all,
after a year or two of instructing you are somewhat more aware of the problems affecting the operations of aeroplanes wether they be C152 or A320. Also your ability to handle an aeroplane in difficult conditions aswell as navigate and put together a usefull lesson for yor student will improve and make you a more able/competant pilot.
After obtaining my CPL/IR 1 month prior to 9/11 I opted to get an Instructors ticket and I dont regret it at all.
If I was a flight ops manager and I had the choice between a pilot in current flying practice who has shown they are prepared to graft to get on, and only need 500 multi crew hours to get the green book, or a pilot with 250hrs who hasnt flown 10hrs in the last 6 months who has been sat round watching Ready Steady Cook, its a bit of a no brainer.
Also can I just point out that just because you have done 1000hrs of instructing it dosnt mean you are any less mouldable than the 250hr pilot. I am 24 yrs old with plenty of mouldability left over.

[scroggs]

Actually, jarjam it's not as simple as you'd like to think. While you, as a current instructor, would love to think that airline DFOs would choose you over an SO with similar hours (as no SO will have 250 hours when they go looking for their next job), I suspect that the reality would be somewhat different.

SOs are type-rated on the aircraft they act as cruise-pilot in. They must carry out sim checks and flight checks as FO, and they will be given regular base training by the company's training staff. So their hours are more relevant than you may appreciate. If I was presented with a 1500-hour SO current on, say, A330s, and a 1500-hour FI current on PA28s, and I was looking for new FOs for my A320 operation, the choice would be a no-brainer!

However, I'm not aware of any SO positions on the market at the moment, with the possible exception of Cathay Pacific. They are still subject to a recruiting ban by the unions of IFALPA, as far as I am aware (check the Far East forum), so I would not advise going there.

Now, if the question had been whether an airline would prefer to recruit a 250-hour CPL or a 1500-hour FI for their SO positions, the answer would of course be different.

Scroggs
Virgin/Wannabes Moderator
[email protected]

Edit: Brian, I've just realized that you are in the US, where the concept of a Second Officer is different from the rest of the world. I assume that you are talking about a pilot operating as Flight Engineer? If that's the case, I would recommend flight insruction as probably the better option - but I would talk to people experienced in your part of the world before I made any irrevocable decision!

Scroggs

[jarjam]

Sorry to go on but another point;

how many Second Officer positions do you hear of with any U.K operators that are likely to hire a low time pilot, not many.

Something about Rocking Horse S**t springs to mind.

As I read it the Jist of the original thread basicaly ended with a statement saying that a 1250 hr instructor is less able to adapt to an airline role than a 250 shiney CPL type.
I agree that S/O experience and a current type rating would be more usefull than any light a/c time and if ther were more of these positions going I would hang up me wolley pulley tomorrow.

Cheers.

[OBK!]

I here that Britannia Airways do Second Officer recruitment from time to time, there minimum being (F)ATPL, no Type Rating required, and Total 250hrs.

I've been told by loads of airline pilots that sometimes its better to recruit this way, from the bottom of the ladder so that the pilots haven't had as many chances to pick up bad habbits in their relatively short aviation life span.

[Luke SkyToddler]

... and that's another thing that bloldy annoys me ... all this talk of high time flight instructors / general aviation pilots being crap because they've picked up all these alleged 'bad habits'.

If somebody from a big airline could just clarify for me : why does my 5 years / couple thousand hours, of doing such menial tasks as hand flying Navajos down the ILS to minimas, single pilot, in a 30kt crosswind and p!ssing rain, day in and day out, constitutes a 'bad habit', and in what areas a wet-behind-the-ears 200 hour PA28 jockey represents a better employment prospect than myself, I would be most grateful :mad:

[OBK!]

Luke,

I didn't just make it up. I don't make the "rules" either.

[Leo45]

Thank you very much Luke Skytoddler, I could not have put it better; I entirely agree. I also fly PA31 around Europe and the UK in all sorts of weather.

However you may indeed find that some Air taxi pilots pick up bad habits and their flying may become sloppy after a while.

As usual, it all depends on the individuals.

Some integrated students are very sharp and ,although unexperienced, they do have the "potential"of being good professional aircrew.

Any airline selection should be carried out without prejudice and give a chance to both categories of pilots.

Unfortunately, not all the recruiters are aware of what it is like to fly a Navajo single crew down to minima at fairly high speed at night in crap weather at Munich, Amsterdam or Paris CDG (and above all what is like taxiing with no windscreen wipers!)
:rolleyes:

Lastly, I think pilots who have not done any Air taxi work miss out on something unique...

[batty]

I think the question is rather academic realy. When a new 200hour CPL holder leaves recieves his license the majority want to work for an airline flying jets or the like.

Very few are lucky enough to jump right into the RHS of an A320/B737 or the like. In the meantime whilist they are waiting for this illusive job to appear they are far better served by going and becoming an FI to increase their experience and sale-ability to an airline.

Say a year after completing training four pilots go for the same airline job
A) Has a CPL/IR Frozen ATPL , has 600 hours B737 as an SO and current.
B) Has a CPL/IR Frozen ATPL , TT 260hours. 10 hours in the last year just private flying, worked in PC World for the last year
C) Has a CPL/IR Frozen ATPL , FI flying PA28. TT500hours. Obviously comitted to aviation and current
D) Has a CPL/IR Frozen ATPL , 250 hours just graduated.

I would have thought all things being equal the job order would be A,C,D,B

[BBK]

I agree with Leo45 and batty. It really depends on the individual. The subject of which type of background is best is subjective to say the least. My own experience was as a QFI self improver but I do not think that was the most important factor. It was that I kept my head down and listened to the training captains and flew the sim/aeroplane in the manner they wanted (or at least as best as I could!!). The guys/gals who make it through training are most likely to be the ones who learn the SOP´s inside out, prepare thoroughly beforehand, show a willingness to learn, display sound airmanship etc etc.

The above is only based on my own experience and from what I have seen of the pilots who fail to make the line. Lastly, my previous company used to have a policy of only recruiting those applicants with commercial experience (or ex military) then as an experiment they recruited some CAP 509ers and guess what..... they were able to complete the course. In fact the Chief Trainer said that some of them were as good as guys already on line!

BBK

[scroggs]

You've all missed the point that the original question was asked by a US-based wannabe. In the US, a Second Officer normally operates the flight engineer's panel and does not operate as pilot in any shape or form. It used to be a common way of gaining jet experience but, with the loss of 3-crew aircraft, it's now fairly rare. It did/does not remove the requirement to get hands-on hours which, more often than not, will come from FI-ing or air taxiing or the like.

In UK, there are next to no SO positions. Virgin did take some a few years ago - and they all had over 1000 hours on appointment. Guess what - all those hours were FI, air taxi, night freight, bush flying or similar. It was up to us to remove any 'bad habits', if they existed, but it's difficult to transfer bad habits from, say, a Seneca to an Airbus A340!! We stopped the scheme because it saved no money over recruiting a First Officer, with 3000+ mainly jet hours, by the time the extra training was accounted for.

In any case, the only valid comparison is between a pilot with SO experience and a pilot with GA experience competing for the same job. As I said earlier, if the job is a jet airliner, the ex-SO may well have the advantage. However, the point is moot as there are almost no SOs around.

Scroggs
Virgin/Wannabes Moderator
[email protected]