Are the minimum hours in the right hand seat dropping?
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.
https://www.myskills.gov.au/media/17...d-training.pdf
https://www.icao.int/ESAF/Documents/...S-TRG%20v2.pdf
Two explanations but not really sure that things improve as a result
https://www.icao.int/ESAF/Documents/...S-TRG%20v2.pdf
Two explanations but not really sure that things improve as a result
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!!
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
This is why a 250 hour pilot can get out of their depth much quicker despite having good training and good SOPs.
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: australia
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Flying a E145 now so their loss.
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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 !
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/417179...-023_final.pdf
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/417179...-023_final.pdf
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.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by *Lancer*; 1st Apr 2019 at 03:56.
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
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 :-)
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 :-)
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....
Last edited by compressor stall; 2nd Apr 2019 at 07:41. Reason: clarity
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.