Calm down c173, airline pilots are making decisions on a daily basis all around the world as well, including the ones that never flew in GA

“Sometimes, though very rarely like the Hudson prang, events require you to demonstrate that you're capable of 90% plus or you die”

Well, maybe the minimum regulatory standard should be set to 90% then. Maybe it already is.

The point being that there is no data to support the assertion that higher salary amongst pilots results in higher levels of safety assuming that all pilots within the system have satisfactory oversight and achieve the minimum standard.

Interestingly Sully was one of the lowest paid pilots of any legacy airline in the US but it clearly didn’t affect his judgment.

“perhaps because those who got 98% went to a better paying gig”

Flawed assumption as highlighted by your suggested example of Sully himself. To think the highest paying airline is staffed by the most talented aircrew is not supported by any data at all. Take a look at what Fedex get for being one of the highest paying companies in the industry.

“ . . . and that isn't a black and white process”.

No, and I am not implying that it is. If pilot A is SAFE and pilot B is SAFER, there is simply no reason to value pilot B more than pilot A. Safe is good enough. Would you agree that a safe pilot wouldn’t crash into a mountain?

You're pretending that safety is a binary, yes/no concept, which of course it isn't. My 1975 Holden Kingswood was a 'safe' car - if it was unsafe, no-one would've bought the things. But a 1975 Volvo was even safer, and some people were willing to pay more as a result. These days, either the 'safe' Holden or 'safer' Volvo would be a lethally dangerous ****box in comparison to even the most humble Kia. It's all relative.

As to whether a safe pilot would crash into a mountain, just about every pilot that's ever crashed an airliner was 'safe' when they reported for work. They'd passed their last renewal, route check and medical, and never crashed before. Their airlines were happy for them to fly their aircraft. By your standards, they were safe. And yet, within hours, they'd stalled from 35000' into the water, totally failed to manage their airspeed during a visual approach, or tried to land a 737 at 221 kts on a 2200m runway. They might've been considered 'safe' when they signed on, but clearly there were other pilots out there who were safer. I'd certainly value them more.

Impossible to agee, based on the following.

It would be, if and only if "safe" was defined as "this pilot is 100% guaranteed not to crash into a mountain."

Your definition of "safe" appears to be "meets the minimum standards under satisfactory oversight". We would then have to define "satisfactory oversight" which generally involves observation of a few SIM rides a year and an annual or biannual line check - all of which only require "meets minimum standards".

Now we all have good days and bad days, but all I have to do is demonstrate minimum standards a few times a year and I am deemed "safe" under your definition.

My arguement aready stated was that there is no such thing as "safe"' only less safe or more safe.

What makes us more safe, as a herd, is the constant professionalism and desire to excel. That is, we are not, as a pilot group, content with minimum standard (or at least 99% of us are not).

If we were all told tomorrow, our salary is reduced to $20K, do you think we would maintain that constant professionalism and desire to excel? We would probably collectively start putting in the minimum required until we found another career that paid more.

What I'm trying to say is, you need the incentive of a decent reward to keep putting in the hard yards, hour of study, ambition to get the promotion, and disclipline for your own reputation, because it's worth it.

If every airline pilot was paid McDonalds wages your premise of minimum safety required would most certainly result in a smoking hole in the side of a mountain.

As per the above, no I wouldn't.

Nor would I conduct a search for the cheapest surgeon in the country to treat my prostate cancer, despite the fact that the system has deemed him/her safe. When life and death is on the line, the dollars and cents become a slightly lower priority.

To put the ball back in your court:

Would you agree that safe pilots sometimes do crash into mountains and perhaps a more safe pilot wouldn't have?

Attempting to engage in rational debate with the market fundamentalist in residence is an exercise in futility. In his case, as with all zealots, ideology will always trump reality.

I think the crux of this argument is not the level of pay pilots receive at all, but the CEO's of our beloved aviation organisations using our "highly paid" status as a lever to drive our profession into unskilled territory. It is quite clear we are not all that expensive in reality according to this.

c173, you conveniently did not quote this line of my post...

My theory relates ONLY to jet RPT operations.

I did my time in GA. Yes I know how difficult it is. Aviation is upside down, as you get more experience they give you another pilot to help you fly a better equipped and maintained aircraft. I shudder to think of me trying to do SP IFR in a Baron on a dark and stormy night nowadays. No snub intended.

Only in Australia.

Any good pilot is bad on a good day.

Any bad pilot is good on a good day.

Any bad pilot is bad on a bad day.

Any good pilot is bad on bad day.

The rest of us are just average on any day, and that's where I'd like to be.

icarus, my apologies, I got a bit passionate/carried away and didn't read it properly :}

Still defending the value of all Australian pilots though!

Amen to that.:ok: