Job After 200 Hours
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South East
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Military a stupid comparison?? I flew in the military for 15 years but not as a pilot and we had guys flying the AWACS a NATO asset worth in the region of £200 million with the type of experience we are talking about. There were 19 man crews aboard so they are no small fish. There are also military troop carriers with 200 plus passengers down the back, being flown by these low houred pilots...etc etc
Time in the air does count as you say.....but only up to a point. A guy with 1500 hours in a single vs a guy with 200 hours single and 1300 hours jet.......mmm I know which one i would prefer to employ.
Hours count when they are productive and relivent, tootling around in a single for fun is not productive, and in some cases can be counterproductive. Guys with FI rating are clocking up relivent productive hours...up to a point. I have seen guys with lots of light aircraft hours failing type rating courses whilst low hour guys pass well. Relivence is what counts, a low hour guy has few bad habits, is in the learning grove, and often much more current with all of his hours being quality hours.
PS I have 1800 hours pilot (1600 B737) 200 singles/light twin. I have a further 3500 hours RAF aircrew, (including 2 wars).......so your right I have very little experience of aviation.
Time in the air does count as you say.....but only up to a point. A guy with 1500 hours in a single vs a guy with 200 hours single and 1300 hours jet.......mmm I know which one i would prefer to employ.
Hours count when they are productive and relivent, tootling around in a single for fun is not productive, and in some cases can be counterproductive. Guys with FI rating are clocking up relivent productive hours...up to a point. I have seen guys with lots of light aircraft hours failing type rating courses whilst low hour guys pass well. Relivence is what counts, a low hour guy has few bad habits, is in the learning grove, and often much more current with all of his hours being quality hours.
PS I have 1800 hours pilot (1600 B737) 200 singles/light twin. I have a further 3500 hours RAF aircrew, (including 2 wars).......so your right I have very little experience of aviation.
Last edited by batty; 6th Mar 2003 at 10:07.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lostcomm - I do realise that I still have a lot to learn. Anyone who has been in an airline job for 6 months still has a lot to learn, even if they've had 3000 hours flying light aircraft before that. You may want to read back over your post though and realise that you still have a lot to learn about the English language. (sorry - cheap shot)
- He's on a wind up.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This debate has many sides to it. Any average low hour pilot should manage to fly a 737 or a A320 on regular line trips where every approach is a vectored ILS etc and where the automatics can do most of the work if need be. However if we flip the coin and consider a turboprop F/O who might be flying in the far flung regions where crap wx, VOR/DME and NDB/DME approaches with circles to land while on minima are part and parcel of daily life and this can produce a different story. Stick and rudder skills need to be sharp and for some guys 200 hours is not enough for them. Past experience shows that a bright and young low hour F/O will struggle more in that particular prop environment compared to the jet scenario. If he/she was put into a jet then no doubt that person would be doing fine.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South East
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mister Geezer, one pont for you to note is that at the moment many of these low hour pilots getting breaks are flying for the low cost sector. Many of their approaches are in bad weather to small airfields with no radar let alone an ILS. Short runways, NDB/VOR procedures, circle to land are part and parcel of a low cost FOs life flying a jet, and they are coping....
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: under the bridge
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know guys I've been sitting on the sidelines of this one for a while, but I agree with the guys who think low hours chaps aren't the way forward. I don't have the 'luxury' of flying with low hours guys but I know people that do; and the stories aren't pretty.............
By the way Batty, I read your personal history......... you say you've experienced 2 wars. I heard you were making tea in a tent.
return to seats please..........................
By the way Batty, I read your personal history......... you say you've experienced 2 wars. I heard you were making tea in a tent.
return to seats please..........................
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South East
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yawn ........Ramrise if thats the cheapest shot you have then go practice harder with your 'High hour' FOs on FS 2000......
Sat off Kuwait in a Nimrod in the Gulf War and in an E3d in the Yugo War...
Sat off Kuwait in a Nimrod in the Gulf War and in an E3d in the Yugo War...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"at the moment many of these low hour pilots getting breaks are flying for the low cost sector"
and that pretty well sums up the whole argument...don't you think!
"circle to land are part and parcel of a low cost FOs life flying a jet"
The skippers at ESY and FR must have some big balls. Because, to be blatantly honest, I probably wouldn't let a 200 hour FO circle to land in the KingAir. Thankfully I don't have to make those calls - all our FO's join with a minimum 1500 hours and 500 multi.
But then we have a chief pilot, not 'beancounters', dictating the hiring requirements.
and that pretty well sums up the whole argument...don't you think!
"circle to land are part and parcel of a low cost FOs life flying a jet"
The skippers at ESY and FR must have some big balls. Because, to be blatantly honest, I probably wouldn't let a 200 hour FO circle to land in the KingAir. Thankfully I don't have to make those calls - all our FO's join with a minimum 1500 hours and 500 multi.
But then we have a chief pilot, not 'beancounters', dictating the hiring requirements.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South East
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question that this brings up then is at what experience should an FO have in order to fly jets or Turbo props? And then how is he supposed to get that experience after all we all had to start somewhere.
If these low hour FOs truly are a danger why hasnt this been backed up by increased accident levels? If it were then you have a very valid point, the insurance man would then 'persuade' the airlines not to hire these people by levying high premiums on the beancounters.
This has been proven by the single pilot IFR guys working air taxi where I believe the pilot must have at least 700hours befor the company can hire them to fly since insurance is unobtainable below this level of experience.
If these low hour FOs truly are a danger why hasnt this been backed up by increased accident levels? If it were then you have a very valid point, the insurance man would then 'persuade' the airlines not to hire these people by levying high premiums on the beancounters.
This has been proven by the single pilot IFR guys working air taxi where I believe the pilot must have at least 700hours befor the company can hire them to fly since insurance is unobtainable below this level of experience.
I say there boy
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm this subject rears its head every now and then - I thought we hadn't seen it for a while...
I think it is relevant to remember that most of the 200 hour pilots who end up straight in the RHS of a multi-crew aircraft have been through a much more rigorous selection process than most higher hour pilots. This can be by cadet entry selection, or the pre-selection of self-sponsored pilots by being top of the class at a reputable integrated school or through the ATP scheme (of course the military also very carefully select their pilots).
They have also passed the same type rating course and sim checks that a high hour guy has. (FAA pilots take note that all European FOs have to be type rated on the type they are flying).
Total time is no doubt a useful and easy factor to measure and compare pilots' ability. But, IMHO, TT hours should not be taken as the sole factor of ability as real life piloting skill is much more complex than one simple variable can describe, a variable which itself can represent hugely different things with equal weighting (boring holes in the Florida sky in a C152 vs. airline 737 hours).
There is a broad distribution in ability about every TT hours level: put simply, in the real world there are 200 hour pilots that fly like 2000 hour pilots and vice versa but on average a 2000 hour pilot will be better.
This is born out by the fact that the military and many airlines quite happily put carefully selected 200 hour pilots in the RHS of their jets. This is because they have carefully chosen those with significantly higher than average ability.
Although it may seem unusual to many across the pond, the European system works: you can prove your ability ab initio in the rigorous selection for airline sponsorship, you can prove your ability by self-sponsoring yourself in a reputable integrated school and coming very high in the class (which is likely to contain airline-sponsored cadets), you can prove your ability as a low-hours CPL/IR in the rigorous ATP scheme selection, or you can prove your ability by gaining hours.
In the US AFAIK there is only the last option. Probably because there is much more GA so it is a more viable route.
cheers!
foggy.
I think it is relevant to remember that most of the 200 hour pilots who end up straight in the RHS of a multi-crew aircraft have been through a much more rigorous selection process than most higher hour pilots. This can be by cadet entry selection, or the pre-selection of self-sponsored pilots by being top of the class at a reputable integrated school or through the ATP scheme (of course the military also very carefully select their pilots).
They have also passed the same type rating course and sim checks that a high hour guy has. (FAA pilots take note that all European FOs have to be type rated on the type they are flying).
Total time is no doubt a useful and easy factor to measure and compare pilots' ability. But, IMHO, TT hours should not be taken as the sole factor of ability as real life piloting skill is much more complex than one simple variable can describe, a variable which itself can represent hugely different things with equal weighting (boring holes in the Florida sky in a C152 vs. airline 737 hours).
There is a broad distribution in ability about every TT hours level: put simply, in the real world there are 200 hour pilots that fly like 2000 hour pilots and vice versa but on average a 2000 hour pilot will be better.
This is born out by the fact that the military and many airlines quite happily put carefully selected 200 hour pilots in the RHS of their jets. This is because they have carefully chosen those with significantly higher than average ability.
Although it may seem unusual to many across the pond, the European system works: you can prove your ability ab initio in the rigorous selection for airline sponsorship, you can prove your ability by self-sponsoring yourself in a reputable integrated school and coming very high in the class (which is likely to contain airline-sponsored cadets), you can prove your ability as a low-hours CPL/IR in the rigorous ATP scheme selection, or you can prove your ability by gaining hours.
In the US AFAIK there is only the last option. Probably because there is much more GA so it is a more viable route.
cheers!
foggy.
Last edited by foghorn; 7th Mar 2003 at 09:43.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't go as far as to say that 200hr bods are "truly are a danger". I still do have questions about the logic of taking our least experienced comrades and putting them into our biggest and fastest machines.
Why hasn't the accident rate increased? Simple - experienced guys in the LHS, a fairly benign operating environment (same ports, plenty of operational support) and adequate training.
Something to think about -
Countries like Canada, US, Australia, Africa etc where a/c are part of everyday life and used like a company pickup truck or family car - why do we find 200hr guys in 206's, 210's - 1000hr guys in PA31's, C402 - 2000+ hour guys in turboprops and jets? Do they know something we don't?
IMHO the situation in Europe is purely a dollars and cents issue. For operators its a "risk management/affordable safety" issue and at present there is no reason for the companies to change the status quo.
I think companies like Cathay and Qantas have the right idea - all new hire start as S/O's (cruise relief pilots). Plenty of time to get into the swing of things, learn the company culture and observe some more experienced operators from close hand. It would be hard to argue the safety case against these particular organisations.
Batty - I'd be interested to hear if your thoughts change the first time you're in the LHS and a 200hr guy is circling to land
Why hasn't the accident rate increased? Simple - experienced guys in the LHS, a fairly benign operating environment (same ports, plenty of operational support) and adequate training.
Something to think about -
Countries like Canada, US, Australia, Africa etc where a/c are part of everyday life and used like a company pickup truck or family car - why do we find 200hr guys in 206's, 210's - 1000hr guys in PA31's, C402 - 2000+ hour guys in turboprops and jets? Do they know something we don't?
IMHO the situation in Europe is purely a dollars and cents issue. For operators its a "risk management/affordable safety" issue and at present there is no reason for the companies to change the status quo.
I think companies like Cathay and Qantas have the right idea - all new hire start as S/O's (cruise relief pilots). Plenty of time to get into the swing of things, learn the company culture and observe some more experienced operators from close hand. It would be hard to argue the safety case against these particular organisations.
Batty - I'd be interested to hear if your thoughts change the first time you're in the LHS and a 200hr guy is circling to land
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
grivation - I don't see what the big deal exactly is with NDB, circling, and visual approaches. You obviously had or have trouble with these yourself since you talk of them as if they require super powers to carry them out. It's all flying. You don't need thousands of hours to know how to fly a circle to land or NDB approach. And yes, as a 737NG pilot I do these procedures quite often without any problems. I sense some huge resentment in your posts. Did you maybe fail a jet sim check on a job interview? Maybe it was your circling approach that let you down.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see what the big deal exactly is with circling approaches
Your apparent inability to understand the hazards in what many regard as "the most dangerous manoeuvre in the kit" is a little disconcerting to say the least. ICAO, FAA, CAA, CASA, SA-CAA all issue warnings with a similar message - circling approaches in poor wx conditions are to be treated as a last option. I'm sure you're aware that many airlines around the world specifically prohibit circling approaches.
In fact ICAO says "Airlines have killed many people [by] attempting a circle to land manoeuvre." And were you aware that "Thirty circling accident per year occur in the U.S. alone, with the majority of these involving fatalities."
FYI, no I have never failed a sim check, nor do I have or have ever had problems manipulating an aircraft around in circling conditions. However, I have a very healthy respect for any manoeuvre which involves flying an aircraft in crap weather, close to the ground, at slow speed, in a high drag configuration whilst trying to keep sight of a runway.
So to answer your initial question - I do see exactly what a big deal circling approaches are. But perhaps that's what experience brings?
Oh, and one last quote from the FAA which may be of specific interest to you - "Pilot ego is a major contributing factor in circling approach accidents".
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
grivation - you seemed to have missed my point.
I'm not trying to start some tit for tat argument on the dangers of circling approaches. My point was referring to the fact that you seem to think that these approaches and non-precision approaches require a skill that a low-houred pilot does not possess. I'm just wondering what makes you think this.
I'm not trying to start some tit for tat argument on the dangers of circling approaches. My point was referring to the fact that you seem to think that these approaches and non-precision approaches require a skill that a low-houred pilot does not possess. I'm just wondering what makes you think this.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Belgium
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Untill it went bust, SABENA had a policy of taking (almost) only 250h guys, directly into the right seat of their 737, later the A320.
Worked out fine for safety.
And don't tell me that's the reason they went belly-up, cause that's not.
Worked out fine for safety.
And don't tell me that's the reason they went belly-up, cause that's not.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Gents
Just new to this pprune forum but my question is this.....do these 200hr guys get jobs after completion of an Integrated or modular course?
Also, is it a necessity to be a flying instructor for years before getting that big break with the airlines or is this profession just a case of luck....being at the right place at the right time etc....?
Just new to this pprune forum but my question is this.....do these 200hr guys get jobs after completion of an Integrated or modular course?
Also, is it a necessity to be a flying instructor for years before getting that big break with the airlines or is this profession just a case of luck....being at the right place at the right time etc....?