Fed up of Poor FO's
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the Camel's back
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Studi makes some good points of how it would be in an ideal world with low hours guys. Unfortunately, while his airline (Lufthansa I suspect?) is willing to invest this much time and effort, others clearly are not. So while low hours in jets works well in the intensively trained scenario, there is no doubt that someone thrown into an FR-environment of minimal training will fare less well unless there is some experience to fall back on.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC,
Excellent post.
I would hope that the majority of F/O's are able to think outside the box and when faced with a situation not covered by SOP's, will deal with it in the same way a single pilot did their first time. The fact you have another guy in the f/d with you should be viewed as a distinct bonus and not a 'hinderence'.
Excellent post.
I would hope that the majority of F/O's are able to think outside the box and when faced with a situation not covered by SOP's, will deal with it in the same way a single pilot did their first time. The fact you have another guy in the f/d with you should be viewed as a distinct bonus and not a 'hinderence'.
Last edited by Topslide6; 7th Feb 2006 at 12:53.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 30 West
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
low time ?
Go to India and fly there buddy ..... pilots with 200 hours can get a commercial and are getting yes ARE getting Jobs as F/O'S on A320 'S / 319 'S 737' s / A310's
not surprising eh !
Personally if the guys doing what hes supposed to then it does not make a difference but thats just me
not surprising eh !
Personally if the guys doing what hes supposed to then it does not make a difference but thats just me
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC hit the nail RIGHT ON THE HEAD.
Studi says:
I might suggest that the reason you don't see the above, is because you have never done that.
That is a given, for ANY level of experience, in ANY flight operation.
There may be 'cultural' considerations as well. In Australia, the percentage of 'low time cadet type pilots' who fly RHS is a small percentage of the overall 'multi-crew-jet-airliner-pilot' group. Even then, their total time is also made up of a few years of either being seconded to regional airliners (a recent re-introduction; years ago they were seconded out to GA flying for a couple of years to gain experience before returning to 'mainline' flying) and then a couple of years as a 'Second Officer' before progressing to the RHS of a 'multi-crew jet airliner'.
In this country, the 250hr co-pilot is a very scarce, dare i say', non-existant situation. It is a rarity in the USA as well, I believe.
Another thing I might add, is the mantra that 'single pilot operators' are hard to convert to 'multi-crew flying'. This is a load of rubbish. It's another skillset, and CAN BE LEARNT (for 99% of pilots). If you were smart when you were flying single pilot, you were using some multi-crew techniques, except you were doing it ALONE. You would use CRM, except it did not mean
CrewResource management, it meant COLLECTIVE Resource Management.
Again, you don't understand these values unless you have experienced it yourself.
Studi says:
I really fail to see how 1500 hours in a navajo would give valuable input to the captain here.
I believe that it is much more important to have good knowledge of the aircraft you currently fly (thanks to a good typerating) and of the surrounding operation of your company (thanks to a good linetraining).
There may be 'cultural' considerations as well. In Australia, the percentage of 'low time cadet type pilots' who fly RHS is a small percentage of the overall 'multi-crew-jet-airliner-pilot' group. Even then, their total time is also made up of a few years of either being seconded to regional airliners (a recent re-introduction; years ago they were seconded out to GA flying for a couple of years to gain experience before returning to 'mainline' flying) and then a couple of years as a 'Second Officer' before progressing to the RHS of a 'multi-crew jet airliner'.
In this country, the 250hr co-pilot is a very scarce, dare i say', non-existant situation. It is a rarity in the USA as well, I believe.
Another thing I might add, is the mantra that 'single pilot operators' are hard to convert to 'multi-crew flying'. This is a load of rubbish. It's another skillset, and CAN BE LEARNT (for 99% of pilots). If you were smart when you were flying single pilot, you were using some multi-crew techniques, except you were doing it ALONE. You would use CRM, except it did not mean
CrewResource management, it meant COLLECTIVE Resource Management.
Again, you don't understand these values unless you have experienced it yourself.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it comes down to experience
I think there is a natural tendency to think one's own background is best.
For the record, I fly for a medium sized (abet highly respected) European airline which does run cadet schemes, however I wasn't one. I joined my airline with minimal hours and have approaching 2000 hours on type. I have just about enough experience to realise just how much I have to learn. Due to expansion, my airline, which traditionally has had a very long time to command, is upgrading pilots to command with minimum hours, at the same time hiring copilots of varying backgrounds in large numbers.
I've been discussing this topic with a number of colleagues. Put quite simply, the general view is upon being released to the line, a copilot with 1500 hours of SPIFR on a Navajo or similar will be far more use to a commander than a cadet pilot with minimal IFR experience. As much as anything else, the Navajo pilot will have experienced in copying down clearances, negotiating with ATC, slots etc. He will also have experience of running a commercial operation with commercial pressures that come with it, such as practical considerations to consider when planning to fly right down to Wx minimums, juggling the figures to make the loadsheet legal, etc. His handing skills will be more developed too, although this is an area were 'bad' habits can creep in.
However, the consensus was that once the Navajo and cadet pilot have 3-4 years of experience within an airline, a commander would be hard pushed to tell the difference. At this stage of a pilot's career, their innate qualities such as their temperament and mental capacity are far more important. It's these qualities that make a pilot good or bad, and can be assessed with some accuracy during a well thought out recruitment process, irrespective of a pilot's background.
For the record, I fly for a medium sized (abet highly respected) European airline which does run cadet schemes, however I wasn't one. I joined my airline with minimal hours and have approaching 2000 hours on type. I have just about enough experience to realise just how much I have to learn. Due to expansion, my airline, which traditionally has had a very long time to command, is upgrading pilots to command with minimum hours, at the same time hiring copilots of varying backgrounds in large numbers.
I've been discussing this topic with a number of colleagues. Put quite simply, the general view is upon being released to the line, a copilot with 1500 hours of SPIFR on a Navajo or similar will be far more use to a commander than a cadet pilot with minimal IFR experience. As much as anything else, the Navajo pilot will have experienced in copying down clearances, negotiating with ATC, slots etc. He will also have experience of running a commercial operation with commercial pressures that come with it, such as practical considerations to consider when planning to fly right down to Wx minimums, juggling the figures to make the loadsheet legal, etc. His handing skills will be more developed too, although this is an area were 'bad' habits can creep in.
However, the consensus was that once the Navajo and cadet pilot have 3-4 years of experience within an airline, a commander would be hard pushed to tell the difference. At this stage of a pilot's career, their innate qualities such as their temperament and mental capacity are far more important. It's these qualities that make a pilot good or bad, and can be assessed with some accuracy during a well thought out recruitment process, irrespective of a pilot's background.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
I've been discussing this topic with a number of colleagues. Put quite simply, the general view is upon being released to the line, a copilot with 1500 hours of SPIFR on a Navajo or similar will be far more use to a commander than a cadet pilot with minimal IFR experience. As much as anything else, the Navajo pilot will have experienced in copying down clearances, negotiating with ATC, slots etc. He will also have experience of running a commercial operation with commercial pressures that come with it, such as practical considerations to consider when planning to fly right down to Wx minimums, juggling the figures to make the loadsheet legal, etc. His handing skills will be more developed too, although this is an area were 'bad' habits can creep in.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a nice house
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the main concerns at present though are:-
Small pool of people who could do an ATPL course due to cost, leading to a
small pool of people, not necessarily the most capable, available to the airlines.
Airlines currently recruiting hordes of pilots (in pilot recruiting terms); there are not enough candidates out there holding the licences the airlines want.
The airlines have brought this problem on themselves by requiring type rated pilots, even those with no time on type. This means that the issues of funding to gain an ATPL are exacerbated as now the potential pilot must not only find enough money for an ATPL but also for a type rating.
Further, once the airlines have selected their pilots, they put them through their own sim and line training. I have heard quite a number of training captains' concerns recently about the standard of the pilots they have coming through line training. They are talking about giving these new pilots 80 line sectors and still not being able to sign them off. Yet, despite these concerns, I suspect there is subtle pressure from the company to not "chop" any of these pilots. Does your airline ever chop pilots in line training, even if they cannot fly the aircraft? The airline has invested much money in these pilots and so the pressure is on to get them through.
Low hours pilots can be good pilots with good attitude, good training and good basic airmanship and flying skills.
I feel we need to return to the times of part or full sponsorships, or at least of airlines not requiring type ratings. First it was the CRM course, then MCC, now its a full type rating. Next the airlines will probably want time on type, which candidates will have to pay for.
Airline managers need to take a longer term view (as always).
The other potential oddity at the airline I work for is that they have decided to set up a new base and man it with brand new FOs and new Captains. Seems a bit strange to me.....
Small pool of people who could do an ATPL course due to cost, leading to a
small pool of people, not necessarily the most capable, available to the airlines.
Airlines currently recruiting hordes of pilots (in pilot recruiting terms); there are not enough candidates out there holding the licences the airlines want.
The airlines have brought this problem on themselves by requiring type rated pilots, even those with no time on type. This means that the issues of funding to gain an ATPL are exacerbated as now the potential pilot must not only find enough money for an ATPL but also for a type rating.
Further, once the airlines have selected their pilots, they put them through their own sim and line training. I have heard quite a number of training captains' concerns recently about the standard of the pilots they have coming through line training. They are talking about giving these new pilots 80 line sectors and still not being able to sign them off. Yet, despite these concerns, I suspect there is subtle pressure from the company to not "chop" any of these pilots. Does your airline ever chop pilots in line training, even if they cannot fly the aircraft? The airline has invested much money in these pilots and so the pressure is on to get them through.
Low hours pilots can be good pilots with good attitude, good training and good basic airmanship and flying skills.
I feel we need to return to the times of part or full sponsorships, or at least of airlines not requiring type ratings. First it was the CRM course, then MCC, now its a full type rating. Next the airlines will probably want time on type, which candidates will have to pay for.
Airline managers need to take a longer term view (as always).
The other potential oddity at the airline I work for is that they have decided to set up a new base and man it with brand new FOs and new Captains. Seems a bit strange to me.....
Originally Posted by Airbus Girl
Does your airline ever chop pilots in line training, even if they cannot fly the aircraft?
Originally Posted by Airbus Girl
Airline managers need to take a longer term view (as always).
My top HR honcho came in from dairy industry. Two years on the job and he still doesn't understand meaning of the phrase "type rated". I can't hold it against him, pilots are only such a small part of the empire he oversees.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think my comment has been received in a different manner to that intended. That is always the trouble holding a discussion in type as opposed to face to face.
I meant in the eyes of someone who believes that they shouldn't be there with 'low hours' and it doesn't actually reflect my view, hence the smiley (which obviously didn't clarify enough!). I refer you to my previous post and this comment
Topslide
Again, I think it is the written interpretation here. I am talking generally, when it is perfectly acceptable to do something in one of several different ways, that all comply with the SOPs. As an F/O I often found myself hearing a brief and thinking 'hmmn, I wouldn't do it that way myself', but being perfectly happy to see how the captain did it. And quite often I learnt something new, but it didn't mean I sat there queitly whilst the captain compromised safety!
I am interested as I would like to know where anyone has intimated that pilots who have single crew experience don't make mistakes? Or that they don't apply good principles of CRM and consult in decision making when they become captains on two crew aircraft?
Well, by getting on board the aircraft when there was only one pilot onboard meant they KNEW there was no-one for me to fall back on. They still made the conscious decision to stay onboard. Indeed they were told at the booking stage that the flight would be single crew. I am not sure how you quantify the 'potentially dangerous' situation. I would have thought that every time they get into ANY aircraft the average passenger assumes that they are going flying into a potentially dangerous situation. So they made their decision by accepting the terms of the charter and getting onboard and then staying onboard, with only one pilot. Now if you meant would they have been happy if they knew I only had 300hrs then I could see your argument....
Concerning my comment re the sim being the sim...you mention
Again you are missing the point completely. No-one is trying to make out that flying single crew in a piston twin is akin to flying a sim. The point is about FLYING EXPERIENCE and not about how well one can master known scenarios that you know are coming in the sim, which is different from the real world.
If you re-read my post 1/2 way down page 3 I have tried to put the case for and against low houred pilots in jets and I will re-iterate that I am not against this practice per se, BUT you have to look at the weakest link when it comes to safety and I have given a few examples of some actual situations that I have experienced when flying with brand new S/Os in their first few weeks on line. I have not experienced any similar situations with direct entry F/Os (minimum unfrozen ATPL). I do not 'tar' all 250hr pilots with the same brush, nor do I claim that all airlines that have them are the same. What I have tried to do is give a balanced view and I have come to the conclusion that someone with more experience, be that from single pilot ops, turbo-prop two crew experience or whatever other commercial flying, increases the safety on the jet flight-deck (which relates to the original question posed on this thread).
PP
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?
Don't think I am anti-250hr guys, I am not....
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.
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.
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.
Concerning my comment re the sim being the sim...you mention
tis true...and a light twin is not even the sim.
If you re-read my post 1/2 way down page 3 I have tried to put the case for and against low houred pilots in jets and I will re-iterate that I am not against this practice per se, BUT you have to look at the weakest link when it comes to safety and I have given a few examples of some actual situations that I have experienced when flying with brand new S/Os in their first few weeks on line. I have not experienced any similar situations with direct entry F/Os (minimum unfrozen ATPL). I do not 'tar' all 250hr pilots with the same brush, nor do I claim that all airlines that have them are the same. What I have tried to do is give a balanced view and I have come to the conclusion that someone with more experience, be that from single pilot ops, turbo-prop two crew experience or whatever other commercial flying, increases the safety on the jet flight-deck (which relates to the original question posed on this thread).
PP
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Topslide 6,
Late reply sorry,never been called an old bean before!
I hoped to explain why some capts think there are some poor F/Os out on the line.Most of the line pilots I have ever met do all they can to "bring on" new pilots and you will find that when you are in the LHS your workload will very high as you let new F/Os gain some flight time.
Good on you for sticking up for what you think is right and thanks for the CRM ,with your clear view of who is right/wrong I bet you are going to be a joy to fly with when you change seats.
Late reply sorry,never been called an old bean before!
I hoped to explain why some capts think there are some poor F/Os out on the line.Most of the line pilots I have ever met do all they can to "bring on" new pilots and you will find that when you are in the LHS your workload will very high as you let new F/Os gain some flight time.
Good on you for sticking up for what you think is right and thanks for the CRM ,with your clear view of who is right/wrong I bet you are going to be a joy to fly with when you change seats.
Last edited by Kak Klaxon; 6th Feb 2006 at 11:22.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilotpete,
I would agree with that 100%. I think there's a fair bit of mis-understanding gone on here between both sides and we seem to be going round in circles.
Yes I did. Things never come across the same in type either as they are meant or as they do face to face. It's an interesting debate to have though!!
Kak klaxon,
It was 'Old Boy'. Should it have been 'old man (or woman)' then?
JOKE!!
It's not a clear view of who's right or wrong, and i'm perfectly happy and willing to accept it if i am wrong, i'm only saying things as I see them (and that's taking into account the above)...and trying to balance what is generally a 'low hour F/O's should not be flying jets' attitude by some on here, because I completely disagree with it. Nothing that has been posted here has changed that and that is MY opinion and this is an argument/debate...it's nothing personal!! It's telling that it seems to be the people who've flown single pilot ops that strongly hold that opinion but before you shout, I mean that in the context as someone else said that 'everyone tends to think their own background is best'...the modular vs integrated debate is a prime example, and I think it's absolutely right. As for me swapping seats, I look forward to the day, but have a lot to learn from the guys I fly with first.
The one thing that is absolute fact, however, is that the single pilot IFR route (in the UK at least) cannot provide the number of pilots that the airline industry requires, and nowadays these operators seem to be asking for hours before they touch newly qualified guys, often more than the airlines. I also think it's fair to say that airlines are not particularly bothered either way. They want bums on seats and pilots straight out of flight school have been sitting in the rhs of jets for at least the last 20 years...why should it change now? I'd like to think that regardless of experience, they select properly and get quality guys/girls commenserate with experience. It's obvious in some cases that they don't...Pilotpete has highlighted that and as such it will make the skipper's job harder. Perhaps in that instance single pilot experience may help but I still believe only very marginally. A good mix of experience across the board is surely the way to go.
I reckon the original post and thread title was designed to wind people up and get a reaction. No doubt that it worked then!!
That is always the trouble holding a discussion in type as opposed to face to face.
Now if you meant would they have been happy if they knew I only had 300hrs then I could see your argument....
Kak klaxon,
It was 'Old Boy'. Should it have been 'old man (or woman)' then?
JOKE!! It's not a clear view of who's right or wrong, and i'm perfectly happy and willing to accept it if i am wrong, i'm only saying things as I see them (and that's taking into account the above)...and trying to balance what is generally a 'low hour F/O's should not be flying jets' attitude by some on here, because I completely disagree with it. Nothing that has been posted here has changed that and that is MY opinion and this is an argument/debate...it's nothing personal!! It's telling that it seems to be the people who've flown single pilot ops that strongly hold that opinion but before you shout, I mean that in the context as someone else said that 'everyone tends to think their own background is best'...the modular vs integrated debate is a prime example, and I think it's absolutely right. As for me swapping seats, I look forward to the day, but have a lot to learn from the guys I fly with first.
The one thing that is absolute fact, however, is that the single pilot IFR route (in the UK at least) cannot provide the number of pilots that the airline industry requires, and nowadays these operators seem to be asking for hours before they touch newly qualified guys, often more than the airlines. I also think it's fair to say that airlines are not particularly bothered either way. They want bums on seats and pilots straight out of flight school have been sitting in the rhs of jets for at least the last 20 years...why should it change now? I'd like to think that regardless of experience, they select properly and get quality guys/girls commenserate with experience. It's obvious in some cases that they don't...Pilotpete has highlighted that and as such it will make the skipper's job harder. Perhaps in that instance single pilot experience may help but I still believe only very marginally. A good mix of experience across the board is surely the way to go.
I reckon the original post and thread title was designed to wind people up and get a reaction. No doubt that it worked then!!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Topslide6, your moaning really winds me up.
You say that you look forward to sitting in the L.H. seat some day.
You also say you have 900 TTand 600 737 time. That means less than a 1/3 of your time is P1. If I was to hazard a guess (and correct me if I am wrong) you probably have no more than 150 hours P1 of which most will be on a single engine type.
I have 1350 TT, near on 450 multi time and 1150 P1 flying in all sorts of weather. I have had diversions due to technical problems as well as divs due wx. All of these decisions I have had to make without the aid of the nice jolly captain sitting next to me. I also had to do this straight off the back of my MEIR with passengers in the back. This is minimal experience and I dont pretend otherwise.
My question to you is this..... Put yourself in the position of the passengers and or the Captains who you fly with? Lets say tomorrow, you have a bad day. Just after t/o, the jolly old captain who you have been relying on so much to teach you how to be a captain (and to pick up your mistakes) has a coronary. What are you going to do? How do you react. Have you ever had to make decisions by yourself (and face the consequense of making a bad one)? Is now the time you want to be learning that? You are just feeling comfortable being an F/O and now you are being forced to be a captain.
Good luck buddy.
Ask yourself one more question. Take your 600 hours 737 time, add my 1150 hours p1 and then ask your captain to drop dead. Would you rather be in that situation or would you rather it happened tomorrow or better still when you have just come off line with 200 hours TT. I know what I would prefer and I gaurantee the peeps in the back as well as the sick p1 think the same.
Before you start telling me its sour grapes because I am not flying a big shiny jet, its not. Dont get me wrong if I was offered the chance to fly one tomorrow, or back when I only had 200 hours, of course I would take it. Would I feel comfortable flying a big shiny jet with 200 hours knowing what I do after my time in 'GA'. Definately not.
You need to wise up fella. I hope you dont feel comfortable flying your 737 because if you do, it will soon bite you on the ass. You may think you are competent to fly that big shiny jet all on your own with weather and a captain moaning beside you, but you have only ever done it in the sim so how can you know for sure.
It seems to me, the only people here that are defending low houred f/o's are low houred f/o's and the ones that were low houred f/o's. Do you all honestly think that low houred guys are more safe than guys with 1000+ hours p1 experience, straight out of line training. Probably not day to day because of course you are all safe when someone else can watch out for your mistakes.
If you want my opinion on the thread topic. I think safety is compromised buy putting low houred f/o's into the RHS. Why, because when a low houred f/o is faced with the task of bringing down a large a/c on his own. He is not only being asked to fly the aircraft and operate the systems, he is being asked to be the commander as well and none of his mistakes will be being picked up by the incapacitated p1. ALL OF THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION just to add to the stress level. I am assuming here that a sick or dying captain is an EMERGENCY.
Topslide6, stop telling myself and my fellow colleagues that our single crew experience means squat. If low houred f/o's are so good at doing their job (BY THEMSELVES), why is there a requirement for single crew MEIR pilots (public transport) to have 700TT 100pic of which 40 must be MEP under IFR conditions? Or ATPLs to have at least 1500TT of which 500 must be multi crew? Do the CAA know something that we do not? They are banking on the fact that their P1's are monitoring successfully the junior f/o's mistakes, otherwise they would let you be a captain. I know I can do your job (and have been told as much by more than one 737 TRI) when I have done the type training but you sure as hell cant do mine (legally) as a 200TT f/o until you reach that experience level. You are only able to be a low houred f/o because of the faith the CAA has in your captain. Not because of the faith they have in your ability!
Just for the record, I would expect you with 600 hours on a 737 to be able to handle that type of emergency, so I am not putting you in the same category as the f/o's joinging the 'Jetset' with 200TT as stated in the first post. A fresh f/o ...... ?
I will finish by saying this. A low houred f/o cant possibly have experienced as much as a 1000 - 1500 hour mep or turbo ir pilot. FACT. Therefore their bag of experience is a lot smaller than the guy who starts on the big jet with exactly the same amount of luck. I know what position I would rather be in. I hear some of you about to say, pilot incapacitation is not that common..................
You say that you look forward to sitting in the L.H. seat some day.
You also say you have 900 TTand 600 737 time. That means less than a 1/3 of your time is P1. If I was to hazard a guess (and correct me if I am wrong) you probably have no more than 150 hours P1 of which most will be on a single engine type.
I have 1350 TT, near on 450 multi time and 1150 P1 flying in all sorts of weather. I have had diversions due to technical problems as well as divs due wx. All of these decisions I have had to make without the aid of the nice jolly captain sitting next to me. I also had to do this straight off the back of my MEIR with passengers in the back. This is minimal experience and I dont pretend otherwise.
My question to you is this..... Put yourself in the position of the passengers and or the Captains who you fly with? Lets say tomorrow, you have a bad day. Just after t/o, the jolly old captain who you have been relying on so much to teach you how to be a captain (and to pick up your mistakes) has a coronary. What are you going to do? How do you react. Have you ever had to make decisions by yourself (and face the consequense of making a bad one)? Is now the time you want to be learning that? You are just feeling comfortable being an F/O and now you are being forced to be a captain.
Good luck buddy.
Ask yourself one more question. Take your 600 hours 737 time, add my 1150 hours p1 and then ask your captain to drop dead. Would you rather be in that situation or would you rather it happened tomorrow or better still when you have just come off line with 200 hours TT. I know what I would prefer and I gaurantee the peeps in the back as well as the sick p1 think the same.
Before you start telling me its sour grapes because I am not flying a big shiny jet, its not. Dont get me wrong if I was offered the chance to fly one tomorrow, or back when I only had 200 hours, of course I would take it. Would I feel comfortable flying a big shiny jet with 200 hours knowing what I do after my time in 'GA'. Definately not.
You need to wise up fella. I hope you dont feel comfortable flying your 737 because if you do, it will soon bite you on the ass. You may think you are competent to fly that big shiny jet all on your own with weather and a captain moaning beside you, but you have only ever done it in the sim so how can you know for sure.
It seems to me, the only people here that are defending low houred f/o's are low houred f/o's and the ones that were low houred f/o's. Do you all honestly think that low houred guys are more safe than guys with 1000+ hours p1 experience, straight out of line training. Probably not day to day because of course you are all safe when someone else can watch out for your mistakes.
If you want my opinion on the thread topic. I think safety is compromised buy putting low houred f/o's into the RHS. Why, because when a low houred f/o is faced with the task of bringing down a large a/c on his own. He is not only being asked to fly the aircraft and operate the systems, he is being asked to be the commander as well and none of his mistakes will be being picked up by the incapacitated p1. ALL OF THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION just to add to the stress level. I am assuming here that a sick or dying captain is an EMERGENCY.
Topslide6, stop telling myself and my fellow colleagues that our single crew experience means squat. If low houred f/o's are so good at doing their job (BY THEMSELVES), why is there a requirement for single crew MEIR pilots (public transport) to have 700TT 100pic of which 40 must be MEP under IFR conditions? Or ATPLs to have at least 1500TT of which 500 must be multi crew? Do the CAA know something that we do not? They are banking on the fact that their P1's are monitoring successfully the junior f/o's mistakes, otherwise they would let you be a captain. I know I can do your job (and have been told as much by more than one 737 TRI) when I have done the type training but you sure as hell cant do mine (legally) as a 200TT f/o until you reach that experience level. You are only able to be a low houred f/o because of the faith the CAA has in your captain. Not because of the faith they have in your ability!
Just for the record, I would expect you with 600 hours on a 737 to be able to handle that type of emergency, so I am not putting you in the same category as the f/o's joinging the 'Jetset' with 200TT as stated in the first post. A fresh f/o ...... ?
I will finish by saying this. A low houred f/o cant possibly have experienced as much as a 1000 - 1500 hour mep or turbo ir pilot. FACT. Therefore their bag of experience is a lot smaller than the guy who starts on the big jet with exactly the same amount of luck. I know what position I would rather be in. I hear some of you about to say, pilot incapacitation is not that common..................
Last edited by Jetdriver; 7th Feb 2006 at 23:49.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Therefore their bag of experience is a lot smaller than the guy who starts on the big jet with exactly the same amount of luck
You start off with a bucket full of luck and an empty bucket of experience. The trick is to fill up the empty bucket with experience before the bucket full of luck runs out.
PP
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to admit I'm having a quiet snigger to myself at the irony of this thread.
Obviously every single one of us started out as a low time pilot.
They may not intend it, but the single-crew advocates come across as saying that when they were low time, they were capable of handling it, but the low time F/O is for some reason not so capable at the same stage of their career.
You can't have it both ways - stick the new F/O in your single-crew job with the same number of hours you had when you started it and I'm sure their learning curve and performance will be the same as yours. Or are you saying you're superior?
Given that, one could argue that it's safer for everyone concerned with the low-houred pilot learning in a multi-crew situation, rather than on his/her own single crew.
If the low-houred single crew pilot can safely do their first ever flight with passengers and not kill anyone, then strange as it may seem, the low houred F/O can probably do the same in the event of an incapacitation.
Now if the quality of all new pilots coming out of training has fallen, then that's a different argument, and will obviously affect both single-crew and airline ops.
Obviously every single one of us started out as a low time pilot.
They may not intend it, but the single-crew advocates come across as saying that when they were low time, they were capable of handling it, but the low time F/O is for some reason not so capable at the same stage of their career.
You can't have it both ways - stick the new F/O in your single-crew job with the same number of hours you had when you started it and I'm sure their learning curve and performance will be the same as yours. Or are you saying you're superior?
Given that, one could argue that it's safer for everyone concerned with the low-houred pilot learning in a multi-crew situation, rather than on his/her own single crew.
If the low-houred single crew pilot can safely do their first ever flight with passengers and not kill anyone, then strange as it may seem, the low houred F/O can probably do the same in the event of an incapacitation.
Now if the quality of all new pilots coming out of training has fallen, then that's a different argument, and will obviously affect both single-crew and airline ops.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I whole heartly agree! Best being shown up low houred in a multi pilot crew opp than in a single pilot opp. The point being, there is back up in the other seat. Lives are in our hands in either situation. Make a mistake single pilot opp, high or low hours and erm - planet earth will make you pay.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Maximum
If the low-houred single crew pilot can safely do their first ever flight with passengers and not kill anyone, then strange as it may seem, the low houred F/O can probably do the same in the event of an incapacitation.
The two are so utterly different in terms of performance and complexity of systems and operation that it would seem evident to me that the piston MUST be simpler. The reason the JAA has decided a minimum of 700hrs is now required to operate single crew is a reflection of their thoughts on the ability of the extremely low houred pilot compared to the risks of this type of flying. As pointed out by others, it is currently deemed acceptable to sit in the right seat of a two crew aircraft with 170hrs [isn't that the grand total of an integrated student now?] I suspect due to there being another, much more experienced pilot alongside to minimise the risk. Just my thoughts.
I am not quite sure why this has ground down to a single pilot vs low houred S/O debate, when I personaly think it is experienced vs low houred.
PP
Last edited by Pilot Pete; 7th Feb 2006 at 14:42.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, its a debate that will go on but think about the advantages of our nice jet aircraft - autopilot, auto thrust - auto land, takes a lot off the single pilot in the right hand seat with only a few hours when the poor old capt. dies (let alone the bump up the seniorority list!) Remember, most of jet opps in the UK trust them to do the job, BA for one.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PP, That was the point I was trying to make. One of my CP's told me exactly the same and its a motto I hope everyone lives by.
Tightslot and Maximum, You are missing the point here. I am trying to allude to the fact that low houred pilots on anything are unsafe. This thread has particular reference to Jet F/O,s. I dont think I would be any better (or worse) than any of the low hour F/O's starting today if I had the same amount of experience as them. I started flying SC MEIR when I had 850 hours and man did I have a lot to learn.
People on this forum are trying to tell everyone that they are as safe as people who come from the more 'traditional route' and who have a few more hours in the air and who have seen a few more 'things' in their time. This is simply not possible. Most of their time has been in a sim and not the real world (especially with the new EASA license coming out) and there is no physical way they could experience all the things a single crew CAPTAIN has to experience and deal with on a day to day basis.
I AM NOT SAYING LOW HOURED F/O's ARE NOT SAFE WHEN THEY HAVE AN EXPERIENCED CAPTAIN SITTING NEXT TO THEM. The biggest difference is they only percieve that they are safe because they dont have the pressure of command and, I beg anyone to differ they havent seen any of the problems they are likely to encounter in the real world yet.
Chuck them in the a/c freshly line checked with 250 hours and a captain with an undiagnosed heart condition. I challenge anyone to tell me they would be happy in that situation as a pax (or the dying captain). Lets face it, its just as likely to happen as an engine failure and we all practice for those dont we!
For all those low time f/o's out there geting pissed off with what I say. It is reality. Good on you for getting in the RHS. The CAA think its acceptable and its legal so why not do it. the reality remains this though. If you ask anyone who sits in the back if they would rather be flying with an f/o with a bit of 'hard time' under his belt (im not talking jail) or a newly equally "qualified" but not experienced pilot, I would put money on the fact that 99.99% of them will tell you its the first, regardless of whether its Single Crew or Multi Crew .
Stop moaning that people think you are unsafe. You probably arent but then that will be proven when you have to deal with a situation such as the one I have mentioned. Good luck when it happens, Im just glad I am not in your shoes, YET!
Tightslot and Maximum, You are missing the point here. I am trying to allude to the fact that low houred pilots on anything are unsafe. This thread has particular reference to Jet F/O,s. I dont think I would be any better (or worse) than any of the low hour F/O's starting today if I had the same amount of experience as them. I started flying SC MEIR when I had 850 hours and man did I have a lot to learn.
People on this forum are trying to tell everyone that they are as safe as people who come from the more 'traditional route' and who have a few more hours in the air and who have seen a few more 'things' in their time. This is simply not possible. Most of their time has been in a sim and not the real world (especially with the new EASA license coming out) and there is no physical way they could experience all the things a single crew CAPTAIN has to experience and deal with on a day to day basis.
I AM NOT SAYING LOW HOURED F/O's ARE NOT SAFE WHEN THEY HAVE AN EXPERIENCED CAPTAIN SITTING NEXT TO THEM. The biggest difference is they only percieve that they are safe because they dont have the pressure of command and, I beg anyone to differ they havent seen any of the problems they are likely to encounter in the real world yet.
Chuck them in the a/c freshly line checked with 250 hours and a captain with an undiagnosed heart condition. I challenge anyone to tell me they would be happy in that situation as a pax (or the dying captain). Lets face it, its just as likely to happen as an engine failure and we all practice for those dont we!
For all those low time f/o's out there geting pissed off with what I say. It is reality. Good on you for getting in the RHS. The CAA think its acceptable and its legal so why not do it. the reality remains this though. If you ask anyone who sits in the back if they would rather be flying with an f/o with a bit of 'hard time' under his belt (im not talking jail) or a newly equally "qualified" but not experienced pilot, I would put money on the fact that 99.99% of them will tell you its the first, regardless of whether its Single Crew or Multi Crew .
Stop moaning that people think you are unsafe. You probably arent but then that will be proven when you have to deal with a situation such as the one I have mentioned. Good luck when it happens, Im just glad I am not in your shoes, YET!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a fascinating discussion to read this one!
I have very little 'big jet' experience, well to be honest, none! I am however just taking up my first job in the airline world as an 'FO' albeit for a 'legacy' outfit.
Prior to that I was working in another branch of the industry altogether as my pprune name suggests. Within that branch I have 16 years of captaincy to draw experience from including working in fields of aviation where 'thinking outside the box' was critically essential to the safe outcome of the job.
Although I know that this does not fall into the 'low houred FO' bracket I am still badged and dressed in exactly the same uniform as them and therefore approached with the same caution by my bretheren in the LHS.
My point is that I have met and trained with some excellent, open and willing to learn SEP and Cadet pilots who approach their training with a positive attitude. They, and I, sit in the RHS and think 'what can we learn today'.
Experience is earned and can never be replaced. There does exist, still, the type of person who, in the highly regimented airline world, can learn, flourish and progress without the need for the 1000's of hours on type.
There are all types of people in the industry just the same as in the city, some you get on with and some you don't.
Still the seats more comfy and it's a damn sight easier than my old job
I have very little 'big jet' experience, well to be honest, none! I am however just taking up my first job in the airline world as an 'FO' albeit for a 'legacy' outfit.
Prior to that I was working in another branch of the industry altogether as my pprune name suggests. Within that branch I have 16 years of captaincy to draw experience from including working in fields of aviation where 'thinking outside the box' was critically essential to the safe outcome of the job.
Although I know that this does not fall into the 'low houred FO' bracket I am still badged and dressed in exactly the same uniform as them and therefore approached with the same caution by my bretheren in the LHS.
My point is that I have met and trained with some excellent, open and willing to learn SEP and Cadet pilots who approach their training with a positive attitude. They, and I, sit in the RHS and think 'what can we learn today'.
Experience is earned and can never be replaced. There does exist, still, the type of person who, in the highly regimented airline world, can learn, flourish and progress without the need for the 1000's of hours on type.
There are all types of people in the industry just the same as in the city, some you get on with and some you don't.
Still the seats more comfy and it's a damn sight easier than my old job
Last edited by wobble2plank; 7th Feb 2006 at 10:31.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: beneath mabod * November Transition
Age: 47
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not much to add to this discussion... still I will tell you what I think.
I´ve been on the technicians side of the industry for not too long, but long enough to notice a few things... there are loads of low-timers out there desperate to fly - a lot of them even have a kind of "`will fly for food attitude" and would do just about anything to get a job in the cockpit. I know lots of pilots on the dole - most of them with loans to pay for, for several decades. So this leads me to believe that there is no lack of pilots and that its damn hard to become one (or better to say - to be paid to be one). So considering this, I should stay where I am (I don`t know any technicians on the dole) and leave my fingers of the horn... but knowing all this and thinking it all over again and again I still decided to take the risk, went to the bank (no steep turns here - the kind that gives out loans) and started off with my PPL - simply because I love flying. And yes, I´m one of those who`s doing most of his education in form of a CBT, since I still have to feed my family during the time it takes to obtain my ATPL nad during the time I`ll be looking for a job.
So - naturally - this discussion is of great interest for me, since I might be flying with one of you guys/gals one day
As for the discussion: I believe that the absolutely worst and most dangerous thing that can happen in the front part of an A/C is the "I know it all" attitude. This leads to *~%" load of potentially hazordous problems - from miss/non communication, disrespect towards other crew members(& flight-ops, ATC, ...- they`re all idiots), "go for it" decisions, and so on... but worst of all, a pilot who knows it all tends to stop to think because he knows it all anyway... BUT this is something I observed at pilots of all levels - from 200 TT low-timers to 7.000 TT experienced pilots. I´t`s somthing to do with the person and not his hours.
As for myself: I`ve just had my first solo (`still remember your`s?) two weeks ago and I`m really happy that I can fly and most of all land "my" 172. Nevertheless I don`t believe that I`m the master in flying this A/C, allthough my instructors say I`m quit good in it - I still have to fine-tune my skills and that will only come with experience. I`m also far from being a good overall pilot. And I won`t be finished learning to be one with 100TT, or 1.000TT, or 10.000TT... in fact I believe that as soon as I stop to learn, I should quit emediately. Simply because, if I believe that if I have nothing more to learn, then I `d believe that "I know it all" - wouldn`t I ?
So would I go for the shiny jet if I get into one ? Hell Yeah !!! Will I be good in it right away ?? Probably not ! I will have to learn a lot and I will have to gather experience...
Would I rather be doing it the "classic" way and fly SEPs, MEPs and go on to the Caravans, King Airs, etc... - yes I would, but only because I wouldn`t want to miss any aspect of flying and not because I think its the one & only way to become a "real" pilot, allthough it sure is a good way. But this is simply not an option around here - there`s just no market for this kind of A/C. A CJ is about the smallest commercially flown A/C around here. So guess what I´m aiming for ?!
Conclusion ?
I saw a young FO in the cockpit of a Falcon 2000 the other day - he had a really hard time just to gather the weather infos over the radio. I believe that this A/C would be lost if the captain had a hard attack. The guy only came to the company because he had the proper type rating... Then again I know this guy who started to fly a Cessna 650 with 200TT a year ago, he is really dedicated and he wouldn`t sit down on the RHS(or LHS) if he wasn`t sure that he get it down safely if the cpt dies and an engine is burning...
I tried to keep it short & simple - it just isn`t ! Sorry for that !!!
& happy landings
I´ve been on the technicians side of the industry for not too long, but long enough to notice a few things... there are loads of low-timers out there desperate to fly - a lot of them even have a kind of "`will fly for food attitude" and would do just about anything to get a job in the cockpit. I know lots of pilots on the dole - most of them with loans to pay for, for several decades. So this leads me to believe that there is no lack of pilots and that its damn hard to become one (or better to say - to be paid to be one). So considering this, I should stay where I am (I don`t know any technicians on the dole) and leave my fingers of the horn... but knowing all this and thinking it all over again and again I still decided to take the risk, went to the bank (no steep turns here - the kind that gives out loans) and started off with my PPL - simply because I love flying. And yes, I´m one of those who`s doing most of his education in form of a CBT, since I still have to feed my family during the time it takes to obtain my ATPL nad during the time I`ll be looking for a job.
So - naturally - this discussion is of great interest for me, since I might be flying with one of you guys/gals one day
As for the discussion: I believe that the absolutely worst and most dangerous thing that can happen in the front part of an A/C is the "I know it all" attitude. This leads to *~%" load of potentially hazordous problems - from miss/non communication, disrespect towards other crew members(& flight-ops, ATC, ...- they`re all idiots), "go for it" decisions, and so on... but worst of all, a pilot who knows it all tends to stop to think because he knows it all anyway... BUT this is something I observed at pilots of all levels - from 200 TT low-timers to 7.000 TT experienced pilots. I´t`s somthing to do with the person and not his hours.
As for myself: I`ve just had my first solo (`still remember your`s?) two weeks ago and I`m really happy that I can fly and most of all land "my" 172. Nevertheless I don`t believe that I`m the master in flying this A/C, allthough my instructors say I`m quit good in it - I still have to fine-tune my skills and that will only come with experience. I`m also far from being a good overall pilot. And I won`t be finished learning to be one with 100TT, or 1.000TT, or 10.000TT... in fact I believe that as soon as I stop to learn, I should quit emediately. Simply because, if I believe that if I have nothing more to learn, then I `d believe that "I know it all" - wouldn`t I ?
So would I go for the shiny jet if I get into one ? Hell Yeah !!! Will I be good in it right away ?? Probably not ! I will have to learn a lot and I will have to gather experience...
Would I rather be doing it the "classic" way and fly SEPs, MEPs and go on to the Caravans, King Airs, etc... - yes I would, but only because I wouldn`t want to miss any aspect of flying and not because I think its the one & only way to become a "real" pilot, allthough it sure is a good way. But this is simply not an option around here - there`s just no market for this kind of A/C. A CJ is about the smallest commercially flown A/C around here. So guess what I´m aiming for ?!
Conclusion ?
I saw a young FO in the cockpit of a Falcon 2000 the other day - he had a really hard time just to gather the weather infos over the radio. I believe that this A/C would be lost if the captain had a hard attack. The guy only came to the company because he had the proper type rating... Then again I know this guy who started to fly a Cessna 650 with 200TT a year ago, he is really dedicated and he wouldn`t sit down on the RHS(or LHS) if he wasn`t sure that he get it down safely if the cpt dies and an engine is burning...
I tried to keep it short & simple - it just isn`t ! Sorry for that !!!
& happy landings