|
FO flight time on ET302
According to Ethiopian who published this on their Twitter account, the FO had 200 hours of flight time:
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....deb42c482a.png Surely that must be some sort of typo. Or is it customary to quote time on type alone? I find that rather disturbing of the airline to publish this at this very time. |
What's wrong with having 200 hours?
|
Boeing has a problem here,not the 200 hour man.
|
Boeing has a problem here,not the 200 hour man. I wonder, in the event of an emergency (whatever its origin), how much useful support Mahommad Nur could have offered the Captain? |
Lion Air Flight 610 crashed into the Java Sea 12 minutes after takeoff.ET 302, crashed just 6 minutes after taking off.Nothing to link both events,Really!
|
As always, you all make relevant points. I think that the similarities between the two crashes are more than obvious to anyone and I'm not suggesting that the 200 hours FO was ultimately the reason why the plane went down.
Let me rephrase just to make my point clear: Just how does one become FO at a national airline with just 200 hours under the belt when it takes between 200 and 250 hours to get a CPL? Does that suggest that some national airlines out there are happy to recruit pilots with virtually no experience as a commercial pilot and put them in the right seat? Unless that bloke did his CPL in a 737, what experience can he really count on should the captain become incapacitated? Isn't that a safety concern to some of you? If maths aren't your strong suit: just hours ago, that copilot was still turning the carb. heat off before landing (and again: nothing wrong with that, just a fact). Horatio Leafblower is on point: I wonder, in the event of an emergency (whatever its origin), how much useful support Mahommad Nur could have offered the Captain? |
Let me rephrase just to make my point clear:What ever is happening here is so instant that the flight crew are immobilised,powerless,paralysed.
|
Europe and many other countries allow pilots of part 142 schools to get a CPL with 200 hours. Australia allows students of integrated courses the ability to gain a CPL with only 150 hours. The 150 hour course doesn't include an instrument rating.
|
Originally Posted by ericsson16
(Post 10413049)
Let me rephrase just to make my point clear:What ever is happening here is so instant that the flight crew are immobilised,powerless,paralysed.
|
Originally Posted by Okihara
(Post 10413096)
No doubt you're a good a pilot, no doubt you're probably right, and no doubt you're missing the point of this thread, namely: how do you land a FO job with 200 hours with a national airline?
Since the 1960's, with many/most European airlines and many other carriers, cadets in the RHS of an RPT aircraft with 250 hours has been the (starting) rule, rather than the exception. The whole point of the MPL was to produce a 250 or so hour pilot much better prepared for said RHS --- now a well proven path. Tootle pip!! PS: Most airlines do not regard a couple of years of single pilot bush-bashing in FAR 23 aircraft as great preparation for an airline window seat --- and, indeed, where most of them come from, there is no such source of pilots, anyway. |
Originally Posted by Okihara
(Post 10413096)
No doubt you're a good a pilot, no doubt you're probably right, and no doubt you're missing the point of this thread, namely: how do you land a FO job with 200 hours with a national airline?
|
Originally Posted by Okihara
(Post 10413096)
No doubt you're a good a pilot, no doubt you're probably right, and no doubt you're missing the point of this thread, namely: how do you land a FO job with 200 hours with a national airline?
|
Well well... This is all rather scary I should say. If that's what the MPL curriculum entails, then I can't see how either 200 hours or 10k hours of the same push button skills can ever match those of a few hundred hours of stick and rudder bush flying. It's also puzzling to think that a MPL holder can be entrusted to fly a 737 plus the safety of all souls on board but wouldn't be legally allowed to fly solo in a C-172.
|
Well you might be puzzled by it but heir are thousands of MPL pilots flying around the world and they more often than not are not on aircraft that crash so just because Australia doesn’t do it doesn’t make it wrong. I have seen 200 hour pilots fly an A320 better than ex-military highly experienced pilots ....... and vice versa. |
Originally Posted by Okihara
(Post 10413043)
As always, you all make relevant points. I think that the similarities between the two crashes are more than obvious to anyone and I'm not suggesting that the 200 hours FO was ultimately the reason why the plane went down.
Let me rephrase just to make my point clear: Just how does one become FO at a national airline with just 200 hours under the belt when it takes between 200 and 250 hours to get a CPL? Does that suggest that some national airlines out there are happy to recruit pilots with virtually no experience as a commercial pilot and put them in the right seat? Unless that bloke did his CPL in a 737, what experience can he really count on should the captain become incapacitated? Isn't that a safety concern to some of you? If maths aren't your strong suit: just hours ago, that copilot was still turning the carb. heat off before landing (and again: nothing wrong with that, just a fact). Horatio Leafblower is on point: There's definitely an argument to make that a more experienced pilot in the cockpit wouldn't have a hurt the chances for a safe outcome of the aircraft. First of, it just cant be bare 200 hours on the F/O's log. There has to be 'some' line training on the 737 after the guy passed his simulators. So the figures may be a bit off. If they were flying with a 200 hours rookie on board and this was a training flight (which it was not apparently) there is supposed to be a safety F/O on board. I'd like to point out that the deadliest crashes in the history of aviation were a result of highly experienced (in some cases decorated) pilots who forgot their professional duties and ended up where they did. It's sad, but that's how this profession is. I don't know how anyone react differently to an emergency they never saw before. But yes, I do know of an instant or two in a particular airline when the F/O took over and landed the aircraft amidst a complete cockpit incapacitation and crm breakdown on finals on one of the busiest airports in the world due to Captain incapacitation, without breaking any SOPs. So I'd not be quick to judge the inexperienced guys. |
A modern up to the minute new Airliner crashed killing all onboard with two qualified drivers at the wheel/s. That opens a whole Pandora's box as to why?
Investigators will look at them ALL! Crew, broken down individually covering a huge raft of sub conditions such as fatigue, health/medical inc mental. Experience, training etc etc. Airframe serviceability Engines. Fuel, type & condition. Maintenance especially recent Maint including washing of the airframe. Sabotage/interference. Remember the Ethiopian Flt 961 B767 hijack some years ago?. Hijacked from exactly the same route as this crash! Weather. It could be anyone of these or multiple, Boeing am sure are somewhat nervous as they should be! Hope they get to the bottom of the cause, nobody wins here, we just have a lot of devastated people! & mass confusion:-( |
Originally Posted by Ilyushin76
I don't know how anyone react differently to an emergency they never saw before.
|
|
I have seen 200 hour pilots fly an A320 better than ex-military highly experienced pilots ....... and vice versa. |
200 hrs
If he had 200 hours most airlines would require a safety pilot or at least a training captain to be operating. 200 hours does not make a poor FO but it can make the upgrade in a few years difficult.. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:42. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.