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.:rolleyes:

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

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:ok:

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!

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

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

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

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.

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!:=

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 :confused: until you said this:

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.

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.

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

Nice 'arguing' with you :ok:

Thanks for the first part.
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.
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?
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 :ok:

Nice post studi. Sums up my views quite well.

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.

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.

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.

BOAC,

Excellent post. :ok:

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'.

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

:ok:

BOAC hit the nail RIGHT ON THE HEAD.:ok:

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.

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.

I think these comments sum up this thread rather well, because without a decent basis of experience, the 250hr wonder is a liability rather than a contributer for those first 300-400hrs and effectively reduces the flight to a single pilot operation.

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.....

Yes, but just the ones that don't bribe the VP flight ops.

Why? The only thing that airline manager needs to worry about is the size of his bonus at the year end. One neat trick if you're HR manager is to make your employees pay for their trainning, write nice annual report about it, claiming huge cost reductions and collect nice sum for doing such a outstanding job. If company survives, change job and let your successor clean up the mess. If not, there will always be a couple of vacancies for such an efficient manager and not just within the industry.

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.:E

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 commentTopslide
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

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.

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!! :O

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..................

Interesting. My first Chief Pilot told me that with so few hours in my first flying job...So true and quite apt to the conversation we have been having, whatever flying job you are in.

PP

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.:confused:

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.

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.

I think you are slightly missing the point there. The original question was about low houred pilots going straight into jet aircraft. Trying to compare a low houred pilot in a piston twin (and his ability to handle a malfunction on an aeroplane he already has some experience on), to the ability of the same low houred pilot to handle a malfunction on an extremely complex jet aircraft, I would have thought it would be more likely that the piston twin would be easier for the same pilot to handle successfully.

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

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.

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!

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 :ok:

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