Are the minimum hours in the right hand seat dropping?
 

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

Does anyone have any evidence of this?

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

Any discussion would be really helpful.

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

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

Here's an example of an integrated ATPL course provider, and the airlines who hire their graduates: L3 Airline Academy

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know whether the rellos of the Ethiopian pax would agree...

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

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

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

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

The fact is the hours are dropping globally...

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

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

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

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

becomeapilot.easyjet.com

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

Rex is taking non type rated FOs on 500 hours now

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

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

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

That argument has been used for years and is flawed.

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

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

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

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

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

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