Fed up of Poor FO's

[hazehoe]

Pilot Pete
You got it spot on,
I have been in conditions (or somehow similar)like the flights you describe , engine failure, boots that are not build to deal with icing conditions experienced ,the whole cowling coming of the right engine(PA 31) in cruise , at night ( no WX radar and CB's around)and i could add some other interesting experiences like most if not all pilots who came up through this route.You are "sitting" there asking yourself; should i really be here right now? We both know the answer to that question!
Dealing with customs, international flight plans, customer service etc etc...
If there is nobody to hold your hand you learn real fast!
Of course all FO's are not bad , but i strongly believe that going out on your own in the system in all kinds of conditions builds experience in a way that is not possible by putting a 250 FATPL in the RHS and have him learn by the monkey see monkey do principle.
Of course the office tigers don't understand any of this and so here we are,poeple with no aviation experience, 2 years of high school and a online HR course are calling the shots.
Welcome to modern aviation.

[SMOC]

tug3

I'd say skipping all the admin part of joining a new company and whatever other admin. You could start day 1 at a flying school and come out 13 months later with a frozen ATPL and 200-250hrs, then walk into BA and start ground school for a month, then a month of sim training, and then a month of line training, extremly ball park with the standard days off and rostering once you started at BA so 15 months in the seat 16 checked out.

Now if you were doing the MPL (Multi-Crew Pilots License) from 2007 it looks like you do a PPL, ground school and then hop in the sim for your 200-250hrs and then start line training, so you could be in the seat in a lot less than a year as you can fly the sim 24/7 in any weather.

Found some info about the MPL here http://www.swiss-aviation-training.c...dex/newsletter

[757manipulator]

From day one in the sim on a 757, paired up with a 250hr cadet the difference between us was evident (and that's not boasting, merely fact) and it has continued to be the basis of my success in two crew ops.

When I read this I was nodding my head in a sage and mature (dear god Im getting old!) fashion.
I guess my objection to 250hr cadets comes from the unfortunate group of experienced and vastly capable aviators who have effectively been consigned to the scrapheap because they lack punch in the chequebook department.
Im certain that this debate will rage on, as their are valid points on both sides

[Woof etc]

I must admit from the outset that I don't drive a shiny jet for an airline, I am a mere multi-crew, twin-turbo prop captain flying on contract in Africa.

I have had the opportunity to fly with a couple of low time co-pilots (not much more than 200 hours). I find that flying with low time p2s considerably increases the captains workload and divides his attention due to the continuous monitoring and mentoring of the p2. After a couple of hundred hours of operational experience these guys more often than not develop into excellent co-pilots. However, it is a steep learning curve for them, and in the period it takes them to get up to speed I feel the multi-crew setup is compromised.

By sticking a low time pilot straight into the RHS, the new p2 not only has to master a complex new aircraft type and the multi-crew enviroment, but also has to master the skills that a pilot who has significant experience flying light twins / singles has already developed. A 200 hr pilot has very little real world experience of operating in an IFR environment, dealing with weather, speaking on the radio, decision making, etc. etc.

I feel that an experienced p2 often has a valuable input to make in the decision making process. Furthermore, he/she is more likely to notice anomalies / deviations based on past experience.

On the flip side, I doubt that GA would be able to provide the number of experienced fo's required by the European airline industry and learning the ropes in a demanding single crew aircraft is fraught with it's own dangers.

However, I feel that having an experienced first officer definitely enhances the safety and efficacy of a multi-crew cockpit. This is especially relevant in a contract environment where we don't have the luxury of the fly by numbers approach of an European airline.

Besides, the low time FOs are missing out on the best flying and a lot of fun!

[Pilot Pete]

Originally Posted by Topslide6

Pilot Pete,
At the risk of getting shot down again...you are turning this into a single-pilot vs multi-pilot operation argument. I was merely trying to stand up to the ridiculous bashing that 250 hrs F/O's have taken in this thread.

Err, no. I refer you again to this quote of yours;

As for the experience side of it I fail to see, and no one will convince me otherwise, that a thousand hours flying SINGLE PILOT in a light twin can in any way prepare you both flying-wise and experience-wise for flying a MULTI-PILOT jet. It's completely different flying, and only connected by the fact you leave the ground to do your job.

You can defend the 250hr F/O all you want. Some of us, with a little experience are putting a balanced view of the 250hr F/O. It has been said by yourself and others that many are extremely bright, switched on, capable and all round good guys, BUT, they lack experience (obviously) and the question posted in the first place was pretty much; should they be sitting in the right seat of a jet? I can understand why this question is being raised, because, like it or not, they ARE more of a risk in the right seat than someone with more experience. Your argument appears to be that they should gain that experience in the jet, others disagree. Your final line

Of course, the view from the left hand seat maybe very different.....

sums it up extremely well. The view from the left seat is SIGNIFICANTLY different and you have to rely on the pilot in the other seat, without the comfy feeling that an F/O has, that the guy in the other seat has vastly more experience and will act as their safety net.

Here are a few little examples that I have experienced with 250hr S/Os in my short time in the left seat;

A. His T/O, I hand control after lining us up on the runway. He stands the levers up, presses the TOGA switch and one thrust lever advances towards the T/O thrust setting. The other does not. He follows the one that advances and 'leaves' the other behind. As we start to roll slowly forward, but quickly sideways, I take control off him and sort the problem out.

Why did this happen? Lack of experience. Never experienced it in the sim, the normal sequence was broken and something unexpected happened and he couldn't think quick enough (even with the aircraft about to swerve onto the grass) to either push the other lever forward (which is why he was following the levers in the first place) or to close them both. I'm not saying a new pilot to type with more hours would have handled it better, but the chances are that he may well have.

B. Again, S/O as PF for take-off. Warning light on during T/O roll above 80kts (a 'goer'), I make standard calls of V1 and Rotate, he then 'snatches' the aircraft into the sky with me blocking reward movement of the control column due to his speed of rotation. Then follows a 'chasing' of a pitch attitude into the sky. Cavok conditions, we're not going to hit anything, so I let him continue, but it is an extremely untidy departure with me literally flying the aeroplane through him due to him forgetting all the calls etc. Understandable, and I hope that my chat in the cruise and encouragement pointed him in the right direction.

C. Last one, but just to make the case; The most badly flown procedure is the unexpected G/A and I had one the other day with a low houred S/O who was PF. Once he had pressed the button, that was about the last thing he did right, with me prompting, interveneing and pointing out that making a PA to the passengers before he had levelled off without the A/P in was probably something that could 1. wait, and 2. something I would be doing.




You were the one who 'failed to see' that Single Pilot ops had any value to the two crew environment, and 'no one will convince me otherwise'. Well, my reply was an attempt to enlighten you to the value to the two crew flight-deck of some single pilot experience, and not an attempt to 'shoot you down'.

There is not one thing you have listed there, apart from the bleeding obvious, that I and many (if not all) F/O's have to deal with on a daily basis.

Well, let's have another look at them individually;

1. File your own flight plans (and I mean fill in the form!)

Never did that as an F/O and none that I fly with have to. All taken care of by our Ops department.

2. Produce your own PLOG (admittedly using company supplied software!)

Yeah, fair enough, but I meant 'produce' the PLOG, building all the waypoints and alternate route, not just printing off the one produced by Ops, as in an airline environment.

3. Order your own fuel, catering, newspapers and stock up the aeroplane bar, make the coffee and fill up the snacks.

Yes, our F/Os phone the fueller and pass a figure. The rest however they know nothing of....

4. Meet and greet your passengers, brief them and arrange carriage of their luggage to the aircraft.

No, can't say they do any of that.

5. Load the luggage yourself.

Nor this.

6. Organise handling agent transport to bring the passengers out at the right time.

Nor this.

7. Do your own weight and balance loadsheet, techlog and assocaited flight paperwork.

OK, occassionally they might need to do a manual loadsheet, but you will normally find the captain does that unless they are close to a command assessment and ask to do it. Not one 250hr F/O or S/O, that I have flown with, has even taken a look at the loadsheet (computer produced) after I have checked it, even when I have prompted them to check it. I would argue that the 250hr guy has so much 'new' on his plate that this is one of the things he elects to just 'trust the captain' with.

8. Give the pax safety brief and demonstrate life jackets and emergency exit use.

One of the 'blindingly obvious' I guess.....

9. Fly the aeroplane single crew (the good bit)

One of the 'blindingly obvious'? Shame though, as that is the basis of the valuable experience of a single pilot experienced pilot. Trust me, flying the aeroplane with no-one sitting next to you to offer advice, timely intervention when you cock-up, reassurance, guidance, extra pair of hands etc is VERY different.

10. Gather weather and speak to agents and ATC (often working two radios at a time), often flying outside controlled airspace and needing to gain clearances to enter back in.

No, don't do that in an airline. (ps, I mean whilst flying the aeroplane too).

11. Deal with adverse weather, operational changes, inflight re-planning or re-routing, technical failures and limitations.

Only done by the low houred pilot under the guidance of the captain. And for the experienced captains out there; how often have you 'suggested' a turn away from the bright red weather disply to your low houred F/O?

12. Once you arrived at destination, deal with passenger and baggage handling, documentation and fee paying etc etc etc.

Again, not done by a low houred F/O in my airline.

So I am not sure what airline you think has low houred pilots carrying that burden of responsibility for their operation, but I doubt that ANY do. That's what they pay captains and Ops guys for. Good captains delegate and really good captains give keen, experienced F/Os the chance to run the show from the right seat in preparation for command assessment.

I'm just trying to put a bit of balance on the 'mass generalisations' that are flying around in this thread, but rest assured, claiming that all low houred pilots are 'good enough' is a little dangerous. Ask the captains that have to fly with them, not the guys just out of training school.

Don't think I am anti-250hr guys, I am not, but understand the limitations and then perhaps you (generally, to Wanabees), will make a decent 250hr pilot.

PP

[Thrush]

Pilot Pete - Well said; you've got a lot of pertinent points.

Self-Selection by chequebook is what this is all about. Back to the bad old days of the 1930s Pre-war Auxilliary Air Force which was, apparently (I wasn't there.....), a rich-chaps flying club. When the war came the Sergeant Pilot came into his own - selected on merit and flying skill, not who daddy was.

There is absolutely no subsitute for a couple of years flogging around in the icing in an ATR or jetstream.

We get new F/Os from various backgrounds and I know who I'd rather be flying with if I'm bumping about, flogging back from Eygpt at 5 a.m. towards the end of a 14 hour day with the QRH on my lap, running NNCs and the weather is going down all the while........ Not someone I have to prompt every time I fly with them, even in Normal Operations, I know that.

There are even guys and gals out there who have been poleing some hot ships, such as EMB 145s, in the LHS for a couple of years, who'd jump at the chance of a RHS on a bigger shiny thing for the same money; it must cost a fortune in extra training and use up trainers for say, 60 sectors, when an experienced bloke/blokess would take probably 14 or so.

I always advise youngsters to "do their time" and not to try to run before they can walk, as they will see the benefit in bucket-loads during their careers.

THERE IS NO SUBSITUTE FOR EXPERIENCE

[Junkflyer]

I think all you 250/500/1000 hour wonders should save this thread and look back when you have maybe 6000 or 7000 hours or so. Fly in Russia, the Middle East, Japan, Korea, China, India, the US, Cross the pond a couple hundred times. Only then will you realize how much you don't know right now.

[Strepsils]

I think what is sparking a lot of reaction on this thread is that many of you experienced captains seem to forget that you were once a "250/500/1000 wonder".

We all have to learn and build our experience, and if an airline is willing to place a 200hr pilot in the rhs then don't blame the FO!

I don't doubt there are some cocky smart-ar$ed 200hr f/o's out there, but the majority of us are perfectly aware that for the first 1000hrs or so we are learning and flying, as opposed to flying and learning! However, we will only ever be as good as the experienced guy next to us helps us to be. From some of the attitudes displayed here I fear for the future!

[haughtney1]

Strepsils...

No one is saying that we dont remember what it was like to be a 250hr pilot, thats not the point being made here.

As Pete, Thrush, 757, etc.. etc.. have all said is that they would far prefer to fly and operate with a pilot who has done a bit of time gaining experience in the real world, not only from a CRM perspective, but also from an operational stand point. The perspective they are talking about here relates to a whole range of issues which include flight safety, situational awareness, commercial awareness, decision making, plus a few others to boot!

The selection process based on the power of the bank balance is a fact of life, but its existance does nothing to enhance to quality of candidates other than to reduce the burden of training for airlines.

Just to add a little personal perspective to this, a very good friend of mine started out as a 250hr wonder, he freely admits that he along with just about everyone else on his course felt out of their depth for the first 300hrs or so operating the jet they currently fly (he is now by the way an extremely capable and down to earth captain), and as such he is a firm believer that low-time cadets need a better experience base before they convert onto large jets.

[Pilot Pete]

Originally Posted by Thrush

Self-Selection by chequebook is what this is all about.

I'm not so sure it is 'self-selection'. It is the airlines who are driving it by saving money, indirectly, by reducing the risk of a pilot not making the grade.

Sure, the more experienced pilot attempting to join jet airline 'x' may pass selection and complete all the conversion training successfully. But the odd one does fail, and that costs the airline a fair bit of money, especially if the pilot has undergone type rating training at the airline's expense.

What the training industry has done is recognize this area of cost, and the associated risk to the employer. They have come up with various schemes for taking lower houred pilots through a rigorous selection process and then offered them to a prospective employer. The employer likes this because they don't have to take the risk of the pilot failing to complete line training and having to stomach the associated financial loss.

The selection establishment 'guarantees' their product (the low houred pilot), they train them through to line training, then the airline gets them for the period of line training, paying the training establishment for their cadet (usually by way of paying the salary to the training establishment) and then pay the individual duty pay and expenses. Sometimes with a reduced salary for 'x' number of years. So if said individual doesn't make the grade, all it has cost the airline are the employment costs for the time period they have been on line training. During this whole period they are not employed by the airline, so it is only expenses and duty pay, plus salary to the training establishment. If successful the airline can have first refusal on the individual for employment.

So you see, the scheme works for the benefit of the employer (reduced training risk and possibly reduced costs once taken on), the training establishment which makes money out of the individual and airline, and the individual pilot because they get a type rating and 'jet job', leap-frogging the 'traditional' route where they would gain the valuable experience that we all know would benefit them.

I don't think you can blame the individuals for applying, they are just trying to do what they have paid for their licence to do. Most of these schemes take modular as well as integrated cadets (Ab Initio and Self Improvers to you and me!), but they are usually all quite young.

So I think it is all about money, but the airlines' money, not necessarily the individuals'. If you are talking purely Modular vs Integrated and the Integrated individual paying more and getting a jet job, then yet again it is down to the airlines which take these individuals perceiving that they get someone that represents 'less risk' due to their 'structured' course to licence issue. All the airlines that I have flown for take a cross section and not just one type however....

This still leaves the question originally posed, which is 'should these individuals be placed in big jets without having built any other experience?'

Reasons For;

1. They are cheap(er).

2. They are (usually) very sharp and quick to learn.

3. They have met the minimum requirements laid down by the CAA.

4. They are (usually) 'mouldable' by the airline.

5. They are less likely to bring bad habits and other operators SOPs onto your line. (obviously, as they haven't experienced any other airline's SOPs!!)

6. They are more likely to sit for a number of years quite happily and not be constantly asking when will they get a shot at command.

7. They are more likely to be happy with their 'package'.

8. Subsequent to point (7.) they could (inadvertently) assist the company in lowering existing terms and conditions, and those for future new joiners.

Reasons Against;

1. They have NO experience.

2. Big jets are very complex and things happen VERY quickly when they are diverging from the desired flight path. The lack of experience can lead to not recognising/ being able to cope with 'non-normals'.

3. Some lack the ability to accept training input due to a perceived ability greater than their actual ability. Some of this is down to attitude and they are not the only group that can be affected by this, but some of this is perpetuated by the system they are a victim of; having minimal hours, passing a tough selection where many fail, being put on a big aeroplane with minimal hours; they have been extremely successful up to this point and can be thought of as 'the best' in their peer group.

4. Some (many) lack capacity when anything non-normal occurs. Not their fault, mainly down to a lack of experience.

5. Normal line captains have to adjust to allow for this lack of experience. This is a sign of a good captain that they can do this, but the argument really is 'should they have to?' They always have to adjust to the individual in the other seat, but where should the 'adjustment line' be drawn?

6. They DO reduce safety. Fact, like it or not. As do new captains as opposed to experienced captains. Again the question is, just where should the acceptable level of safety be? Sure you can argue that they have passed all the tests, but reality is not about 'passing tests', it's about dealing with testing situations in a finite time and possibly under considerable pressure. Once you've done a few sim refreshers and then dealt with things going wrong for real you'll appreciate what I am saying. The sim is the sim...

7. More experienced pilots can be getting passed over by the recruitment policy, but like I said, all the airlines I have flown for do recruit a cross-section and not just 250hr pilots - the CAA won't allow ALL your F/Os to be so inexperienced.

So it's down to market forces and opinions won't change anything. Only rule changes brought about through accidents where the evidence points to this being an unsafe practice will change anything, and I for one hope we never get rule changes due to them.

PP

[threestable]

The difference between low and high time individuals? One word sums it up in my view, 'airmanship'. It will only only come with experience, doesn't matter how academically gifted you are, and cannot be taught in the classroom.
SPIFR, airline ops, whatever... airmanship is what makes the majority, (not all, because some will miss out no matter how long they fly), of high time pilots a better option for their colleagues and give them the edge as an operator. I will not define airmansip here. If in doubt, before you flame, do a little research. Some of its' many components have already been touched on here by previous posters.

[Junkflyer]

The point we are (well I am) trying to make is that the lower time pilots in the cockpit reduces the level of safety. How would the passengers feel about knowing half their crew is wet behind the ears? Sure you may handle the simulator scenarios quite well, but what about a new or more complicated emergency situation? (multiple system failures etc.)
A jet is a complex aircraft moving quickly through the sky, in the US typically a new commercial pilot initially flies a single engine, then twin piston then maybe turbine later. That makes for a good stepping stone way of learning larger, faster equipment and also exposes a pilot to decision-making and handling many different situations. This makes for a well-rounded pilot and I think superior to one that has only flown in a training environment and crewed aircraft where most decisions are made for you.

[Pilot Pete]

Originally Posted by Junkflyer

This makes for a well-rounded pilot and I think superior to one that has only flown in a training environment and crewed aircraft where most decisions are made for you.

I'd agree, but only to a certain extent. I think this statement is correct for the new joiner onto a jet. BUT, I know plenty of experienced F/Os, captains and indeed training captains who all got their first job with low hours and straight onto a Boeing. They are all excellent and extremely competent having built on their initial lack of experience.

I think it comes down to individuals and their attitude, and there is no denying that having previous experience is a bonus when starting on your first big jet type, but I would argue that in time the low houred F/O becomes just as competent. It's not the same, learning from the right seat, but the good guy does just this and is making his/ her own command decisions as things happen, sometimes these will differ from the actual decision the captain makes, but again, the mature F/O is happy to go with the captain's decision as long as nothing is compromised. He then logs away this experience and re-assesses the scenario to see what he can learn from it.

The question is at what point does the low houred S/O or F/O become more of an asset on the flightdeck, rather than a hinderance?

PP

[error_401]

justathought

Sorry for late reply - I was adding some more experience and hours

Original post amended to be a little more clear.

Yes - you are right and I do support it - experience makes a difference. But someone can fly 1'500 hours and gain nothing from them while someone else does 150 hours and gets huge experience from it. There may be more to attitude than to mere hours.

[justathought]

No worries Error,
I agree with you that attitude is all important.
I think that it would not be the norm for someone to gain more experience in 150hrs than the next chap gains in 1500hrs though. I think that would be an extreme case of slow learning or someone learning so fast that they really shouldn't be a pilot....what a waste when they could be finding a cure for cancer.
[I]The value of proper basic, type rating and line training? Invaluable.
I agree with this statement too. Thing is, that training is there....should we put pilots with 1500hrs through it? or pilots with 200hrs???
I think if we have the choice then we should put the more experienced pilots through it. There is nothing to say that the 150 pax in the back won't need the crew to use every ounce of the skill and experience to get them safely on the ground due to an emergency .....On your first line training flight.
Think back to your first few sectors.....do you think it was basically single pilot??? Or perhaps the training Cptain had an even higher work load than if he was single pilot as he checked and re checked your duties as well as his own? Do you think that every one of your punters would have chosen to fly on that flight if they knew this?
I know what I think and would be interested to hear your honest opinion.
Cheers.

[-IBLB-]

First of all, i'm not saying i disagree or agree with the above mentioned.
But let's say for a moment that it is better to fly with more experienced F/Os. How do you want to create a situation where there are no in-experienced F/Os? More GA flying before going to an airline? more flying cargo at night in a kingair or something before going to an airline? Flying as a second officer for a while?
I'm curious to see how you would want to solve this.

[Topslide6]

Justathought,

A couple of points;

1) re your comments on line training, that's true to an extent but surely that's why cover F/O's exist, so a training Captain is happy that he/she is not going to be put into that situation.
2) How happy do you think Pilot Pete's 'punters' would have been to know that he was flying them into potentially dangerous situations (by his own admission) on his own and with no one else to fallback on if the situation dictated? I'll bet not all of them would have happily flown with him.

Pilotpete,

I almost found myself agreeing with you there briefly until you said this:

The question is at what point does the low houred S/O or F/O become more of an asset on the flightdeck, rather than a hinderance?

Whether in jest or not, you obviously have some real and quite worrying issues here. If you really do look upon a 2 crew operation like that I just hope it doesn't come back to bite you in the back one day. You could almost hear it quoted in a CRM course on how 'NOT' to do it.

but the good guy does just this and is making his/ her own command decisions as things happen, sometimes these will differ from the actual decision the captain makes, but again, the mature F/O is happy to go with the captain's decision as long as nothing is compromised.

I'd agree with this to an extent, but if my view of things differed from the Captain's I wouldn't be happy to 'go along with it' unless I had an explanation as to why their decision was correct, and visa versa. You are right though, I try to learn as much as I can from the guys I fly with but I fly with good Captains who understand CRM and are happy to come to a joint decision on things, and not just impose their will without consultation. Our job is not to just sit there and take what the Captain says as gospel. Everyone is human and everyone makes mistakes....even people who've flown single pilot. There is nothing 'mature' about just 'going along' with things. It's exactly what i've been taught NOT to do.

If your F/O's are coming on line through line training and are 'hindering' you then maybe you need to speak up to your line training department and stop tarring all F/O's and companies with the same brush.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, and that's to say that of course I understand that RELEVENT experience counts, but it absolutely DOES NOT mean that low houred F/O's are a bad thing...and i'm no way near convinced.

The sim is the sim...

tis true...and a light twin is not even the sim.

Nice 'arguing' with you

[error_401]

Thanks for the first part.

Originally Posted by justathought

No worries Error,
I agree with you that attitude is all important.

Now it gets into a good and positive direction. I'd actually love to fly more SPIFR. I really do. Done myself a couple dozen hours on C340 and C402's in taxi flying. It helped a lot to get onto the turboprop I'm currently on.

Originally Posted by justathought

[I]The value of proper basic, type rating and line training? Invaluable.
I agree with this statement too. Thing is, that training is there....should we put pilots with 1500hrs through it? or pilots with 200hrs???
I think if we have the choice then we should put the more experienced pilots through it.

Yes - and now it comes down to that problem we face (maybe just here in Europe) to get these hours. I tried to fly in SPIFR or SPVFR for two years before I got the chance to fly a MEP without having to pay myself for the flight hours! Got "extremely" lucky. For a year I could actually add experience to my portfolio. Then I got even luckier - RHS in a turboprop. Three guys out of 18 of my integrated ATPL course made it into a cockpit. So how should we get the hours then? Pay an additional approx. 120'000 USD? Now the airline offers me the chance to RHS a big plane. Should I turn it down?

Originally Posted by justathought

There is nothing to say that the 150 pax in the back won't need the crew to use every ounce of the skill and experience to get them safely on the ground due to an emergency... On your first line training flight.
Think back to your first few sectors.....do you think it was basically single pilot??? Or perhaps the training Cptain had an even higher work load than if he was single pilot as he checked and re checked your duties as well as his own? Do you think that every one of your punters would have chosen to fly on that flight if they knew this?
I know what I think and would be interested to hear your honest opinion.
Cheers.

I got lucky on this one. Problem with low experience is that this comes in waves. One day I perform to high standards, the next to average. After about 150 hours I felt comfortable and got good feedback from the captains I fly with throughout, the performance being at a good stable level.
Good feedback on my seventh leg in line training (17 hours on type). QRH situation, diversion, handling the plane and ATC alone. Next at (28 hours on type) in marginal weather, icing, diversion CAPT on OPS to get things sorted. I tried to just make my job and succeeded. Definitively a 1+1 greater than 1 situation. When thinking back (and reading feedback and debriefings from my line training) I think that for me it was always a greater than 1 situation. Sometimes not by much I admit.
Flying the turboprop before passing onto the big jets? Yes - definitively a very good idea. If my carrier whith whom i did my ATPL integrated course would not have gone broke i'd be flying A320 for 4 years by now. Even at the time we still thought we would get into that seat it was with respect that I thought of that position.
What I think of flying turboprop now? Good idea - good operation - lots of experience. Been in places from all over Europe to India. Will it help when maybe i will get into that shiny jet? Yes I'm sure it will.
Having the opportunity to step up our career slowly is what is usually lacking. So the choice is fly on your own expenses, for no or miserable pay on a C402 or get that job offer on the 737 RHS at 250 hours.? Two of my friends got that offer. I'll try to get their opinion when I meet them the next time.
As for passengers. I'm not too sure if it makes a big difference if it is 150 passengers in a 737 or just 5 in a C402 that should be concerned of the low hour pilot in front. Where in bigger planes at least it's the two of us. Both planes can make a hole in the ground and kill people.
If all of them would fly if they knew? I cannot answer this question because I knew this is the case many years before I decided to become a pilot myself. Did it bother me? No, not really because I believed and still believe in the professionals we are.
And what do you think? (You did not yet state that - would interest me very much. PM me.)
In the end Topslide6 said it all in the previous post. Thanks Topslide6

[PhoenixRising]

Nice post studi. Sums up my views quite well.

My company sees it as one of their key safety assets to have a homogenous pilot group where 95% of all pilots are trained from zero hours. The trainers all have the strong opinion that thousands of hours flying in single pilot ops is not beneficial for multi pilot flying.

The major European airlines who run/used to run sponsored cadet programs also agree. This includes the likes of BA, Aer Lingus, Air France, Lufthansa, BMI..etc.

@Pilot Pete, some of your views are quite worrying, especially your last comment. You sound like you could do with a CRM refresher.

I'm not discounting experience gained flying single pilot operations, but most airline training departments do not view this experience as particularly important or useful, the major airlines seem to prefer to get young, intelligent and keen cadets and put them through a quality training school, operators conversion course, type rating and so on.., where the quality of training and performance of the cadet is constantly monitored and no bad habits are allowed to develop.

I'd hazard a guess that around 8 out of 10 captains in the above airlines are former low houred cadets with little or no single pilot ops experience.

[BOAC]

To me it looks as if we are trying to 'square a circle' here.

Airlines basically only want a 'bum on seat' who can operate to an acceptable standard in a multi-crew environment, follow SOPs, walk without a white stick, acquire sufficient hours to be eligible and able to pass the command course and land the a/c single crew if necessary.

The issue of WHY single crew ops are 'good for you' is that they teach you AIRMANSHIP. Something that can take years (or for ever) in a multi-crew, SOP bound operation. I did 5+ years of single-pilot ops between RAF and airlines, and they were the hardest civil flying I have undertaken. Without my RAF experience I would have been 'sorely tried' on more than one occasion. It is a great training ground for learning to keep your skin intact. It is so much harder and takes more overall flying skill than 'big' airline flying.

HOWEVER, no, it is NOT good training ground for multi-crew airline ops. It is all down to what you personally see as a 'nice to have' in the flight deck. No ab initio 'cadet entry' pilot is, by definition, 'bad'. He/she will just be less able to work out that 1 in 10,0000 solution which is not covered by BA, Aer Lingus, Air France, Lufthansa, BMI SOPs. My own feeling is that when the 'chips are down' your 'average' ex single-pilot operator will fare better than your 'average' ab initio. Whether or not the s/pilot operator will be able to adapt to multi-crew - well, we hope so, and should be able.

Doesn't make ex s/pilot ops
a) Necessary
b) Good for crew ops
c) Always safer to be with

.......but I reckon it is invaluable experience.