|
Happens all the time, I make an effort to thank them for their effort!
|
The practice of putting low (200h) Pilots in the right seat is common place in Europe.
As a matter of fact some airline training departments prefer them over more experienced types. These airlines reckon that low timers have got no bad habbits to correct. I have no strong opinion on this one. Reading your posts one question comes immediately to my mind: do you like to fly alone ? ;) I would say that as "standards" are lowered the "acceptance" of lower standards becomes common place. In the early to mid 60's a major U.S. airline tried a temp policy that if you had a commercial certificate with an instrument rating and two years of college they would guarantee you a flight p̣sition as soon as you graduated from the university. I don't remember how many they hired under that policy, although I do know it was a good number, but within 5 years their were less than a handfull remaining because they could not maintain company standards. I did a fair amount of flying with new-hire 1,000 F/O's, and it was a text-book example of "flying alone". |
The argument, no, let's say discussion, will never be settled. This is like discussing religion, politics, etc. Many of today's low time pilots do not have the skills of those of the 70's. Many examlpes of that in these and other forums, and in the cockpit. I won't waste time on that point. If you are not aware of this, then this discussion is out of your league.
However, maybe a lot of these skills are not now necessary because of the technology-FMS. Maybe the 500 hr, f/o doesn't need to figure how to get into a hold because he can just enter the fix into the fmc. Maybe it isn't necessary for him to make pitch, roll, power adjustments on a tight approach in gusting winds because all he has to do is sit back and monitor the airplane as it flies the approach by itself. First flight with f/o, 4000 hrs heavy time: I can assume this guy knows how to fly. I don't know him personally, so I will keep an eye on him. Only came across 1 high time ex-military pilot who was, essentially, incompetent. First flight with f/o, 500 hrs. Hope the wx's good. Bad wx, heavy traffic, I'd prefer to say, "sit back, relax, and watch." Seen too many probs with inexperienced pilots. Doesn't mean they aren't motivated, or don't care. Means have no experience and shouldn't be here. When I had 200 hours, I would not have turned down an airline job. I would also have understood I had no idea what I was doing. |
When I had 200 hours, I would not have turned down an airline job. I would also have understood I had no idea what I was doing. |
Hmmm, without getting bogged down in the original argument, I'll suggest to Mike that he looks (by scrolling down the page) at some of the resources at:
http://www.crm-devel.org/resources/crmtopic.htm in particular reading about PACE (it's a heavy and blunt instrument and not one that works in every case) at: http://www.crm-devel.org/resources/paper/PACE.PDF :ugh: |
Bob:
I've flown with guys that have shown the same attitude like you. Those flights are the ones in which I've gained the least experience. "sit back, relax, and watch" is what bothers me. This approach is bound to lead the co-pilot into a "I give up" mode and he or she will go from being part of the crew to just a pax in the RHS, learning nothing but the fact that they are incapable of doing what they have been trained for. Perhaps it makes you feel better knowing that you are in full controll of things, but in the case that you feel they are not capable of doing their job properly, the more appropriate approach to the problem would be to give the CP a call and make him or her aware that so and so is in need of more training and if the situation is so bad that you'd rather fly alone, cancel the flight. This is of course an extreme situation, but you should not accept to fly a multi crew plane in a single pilot operation. I have about a 1000 hours of which 650 is in commercial TP's and I consider myself still in training. Even though I was checked out a little more than a year ago. And I will still be in training a year from now. The training never stops and therefore asking your crewmember to step aside in other than extreme cases will achieve nothing positive in the big picture. The best captains I've flown with have when I've shown phases or sides that have been below standards, given me a little more responsibility, let me do another leg as PF and so on to give me a chance to rise to the challange. These are the flights that have made me a better pilot and subsequently on the next flight, I've been able to produce a higher standard. This is perhaps the better way to go about the problem than to just cut them out of the loop :ugh:. /LnS |
Bob.... are you for real?:}. How, pray tell, do you suggest that a low hours first officer attains the magic '4000 or so hours' on the 'heavy jet? As if by magic they are just going to appear in his logbook overnight?:rolleyes: It strikes me as a trifle odd that you are not willing to give an inexperienced pilot the benefit of the doubt so that he may learn, but instead suggest that he permanently has to stagnate in a pool of inexperience with no means of removing himself..
Means have no experience and shouldn't be here I really find it difficult to believe that a 350 hr pilot is in a position to critisize a capt. However, I was even more surprised to find that an airline would hire a guy with 350hrs In fact when speaking to a captain just the other day his brief included a caveat asking the newish first officer to 'pick him up on anything non-standard' As he appreciated that his first officer, due to a LACK of experience, would tend to be doing everything as per Sop's. Many of today's low time pilots do not have the skills of those of the 70's Tacho |
Bob
When was the last time you did a CRM course?? Or would your answer be 'I don't need one'. So were you one of these lucky chaps who popped out of his mother's womb with 4000 hours in the cockpit!:} (can't be that far off 9 months). I had a friend recently who somehow set his altimeter at the wrong setting. Thankfully the young lad with 300 hours said 'sorry Captain but i think there is something wrong!' - problem rectified! Your type would have allowed the Captain to take you to the scene of the crash thinking ' Well what do i know'! |
First thing I say to a new low-houred pilot when we fly together for the first time ' don't EVER under-estimate my ability to foul up' or words to that effect. Perhaps a bit melodramatic but it seems to make them realise that four stripes, god knows how many hours and thirty years in the business does not give a cast-iron guarantee that things cannot go wrong in the lhs.
Works for me - may not work for others ! |
I really find it difficult to believe that a 350 hr pilot is in a position to critisize a capt We dont subscribe to this modular 13 month course and hey presto you're an airline pilot. We believe that a pilot learns his trade through life's experiences, from single piston to twin piston, to right seat on a turboprop, then left seat on the same and then finally when he's assimilated all that aviation can throw at you, he might just be ready to apply to the majors. We also subscribe to the view that such a rough-and-tumble 5 year route teaches humility and makes you a survivor. The only guys who get a pass to the majors without any civilian experience are the military and the reasons are self-evident. When I hear of 2500 hour Captains flying alongside 300 hour co-pilots in a 737 in Europe, it makes my blood run cold. The plane is so reliable,the FMS and automation does all the work, and so yes theoretically you should be just fine. But you're hedging your bets. In short, experience counts. And the wider the experience the better. For example,take a Brit flying 757's to Spain and the Canaries for one year. He joined out of flight school and probably has 1200 total with 800 on type. Is he experienced? NO. His exposure to different operating environments is very limited. Flightschool (very little practical use to be frank) and one year of line flying the same routes in a highly sophisticated machine that will practically fly itself if he so chooses. Little has been learnt in such a short time span (2 years) and such a limited operating environment. Yet there he is pushing the buttons and following the FD commands all the way down the slope and dutifully filing the paperwork. And no disrespect to him. But scratch at the veneer and what have you got? |
It wouldnt happen in the States in any case The cadets from most of these programs are highly motivated and are very professional, very thorough training curriculum, at the airline I worked for in the UK an emphasis was placed on check rides without the use of automation, one of the casualties I witnessed involved an Saab CA (US) that couldn't pass an FO check. What I have learned from my experience in the UK is motivation, training and company culture that make the pilot. |
Rananim, the fact that you believe it is so Inconceivable that a 350 hour guy could pick up a captain on an error, speaks volumes. I am sure CRM gurus the world over are banging thier heads in frustration. :ugh:
Take the time to read over the posts again on this thread. No one is saying that the FO should 'usurp' the captain, the captain has more experience, thats why he is in the LHS and not the right, however regardless of whether someone has 300 hours or 30,000 hours, mistakes are inherant in human beings nature. To think that one is infallible is a recipe for disaster, furthermore one who doesnt value (not neccesarily accept) the opinions of his crew because he doesn't consider them "a survivor", sounds like an absolute pleasure to fly with. When I hear of 2500 hour Captains flying alongside 300 hour co-pilots in a 737 in Europe,it makes my blood run cold.The plane is so reliable,the FMS and automation does all the work,and so yes theoretically you should be just fine.But you're hedging your bets Theres a term for people who try and keep people in thier place... its called greasing the pole:hmm:, and imho has no place on the flightdeck of a modern airliner, in a modern society. Some may disagree with me, but then again they are probably too busy sat daydreaming of the days when they used to fly the dehavilland comet for BOAC:ouch: Happy landings. T |
mistakes are inherant in human beings nature To think that one is infallible is a recipe for disaster |
I like the way you (for sake of argument of course) use a brain surgeon as the other example... I would have chosen a carpenter or something a little less prestigious :hmm:
There's a lot of generalisation going on here though. It seems that the general consensus here is that hours equal experience. I beg to differ. Number of landings and thereby number of approaches is where the experience comes in to play. Also, Rananim, You say that for a bloke to be accepted into the big machinery, they have to have seen all this buissness has got to throw at them. What does flying an old piece of metal tubing and fabric, in god knows where with god knows type of SOP have in common with flying for a big commercial airline? The operational aspects are quite different and the ways of going about solving problems are light years away. Certainly, weather and natural laws of physics apply in both cases but the outcome is very different between the two types of operation. By experience, I would like to referr to RELEVANT experience. That's why a decent operator will specify a requirement of so and so many hours of ME/IR. When Brittania was recruiting years ago, they factored SEP time by 0.1. That says something I think. It might not be fair to people trying to break into their first job, but they're just trying to sort out relevant experience from irrelevant. Do you get my point? Ofcourse, it's a humbling experience to fly SEP and live on dogsmess in the outback. But seriously, if this is what's required for someone to be able to have the right attitude towards flying, perhaps they shouldn't have started with it from the beginning. This is not to say that I'm against building time towing gliders, flying parachutists and so on. It's made me a better pilot in regards to visual approaches and visualizing a the flightpath (actual and desired) and hand/eye coordination. But other than that it was mostly for the fun of it and knowing that it was taking me somewhere. It didn't teach me how to plan my descents with respect to wind, ATC requirements or aircraft weights and all the other stuff that goes into flying the bigger stuff. Perhaps I'm cutting corners here in my reasoning but I hope you understand what I'm trying to get at. Regards/ LnS |
Rananim
The chance of a student brain surgeon (who must be a consultant surgeon anyway) spotting a mistake in the slice of a blade, and notifying the mistake before it is made is slim (That is why in 2004-2005 2000 people died as a result of human error world wide in aviation, and 750 000 people died in the same year in the USA alone from medical human error - YES 750 000!!). We are actually good now in mitigating human error in aviation. It is easier for your FO to spot your mis-set altimeter or the fact you are cutting the corner to the ILS than in the medical setting above. I wonder how many times you have made a mistake, then spotted it and rectified it without telling the FO, just to save face?? - Only you know!! Your anology is very worrying for the future of aviation Let me try an analogy;can a med student offer concrete advice to a brain surgeon,should he even try?Doesnt mean the brain surgeon wont seek a second opinion because he thinks hes infallible;he'll just seek it from another experienced brain surgeon. I leave you with a final thought 'Experience is the thing that you get 10 seconds after you needed it! After 17 hours military flying, i had an experience which i successfully handled, which lead to a prestigeous award. Neither my Squadron Commander, my Wing Commander or my Group Captain had had a similar experience in a total of over 90 years of flying 'experience' between them. Moral of the story is - 'Experience normally comes with time in the job, but you just never know what that rookie has done'. It's not to late to learn before you retire with your family. Don't let the young rookie be that guy that knowingly allows you to take him to the scene of the crash! You are the mentor, you are the father figure, you set the conditions. I can name a large number of pilots with 15 000 hours plus who killed all their passengers, and had, as a major factor, ignored the (correct) input from their percieved inexperienced FO's. |
I dont think if I flew for 1000 years I would have assimilated all that aviation could throw at me!:bored: Think you have the wrong impression of low hours F/Os, most are a humble bunch who are only too aware of thier lack of experience. Yet by disqualifying them to the sin bin because they haven't been around in an otter for most of thier youth you have effectively made it a single crew operation, which IS dangerous. Suggest you read 'the naked pilot'.
he'll just seek it from another experienced brain surgeon. Overall I noticed both you and Bob have failed to answer my question on how an inexperienced FO might gain the oh so important 3000 or so hours before you will listen to him and .... God forbid.... actually let him fly the aeroplane he is qualified to fly on. Dont tell me sitting watching you and raising the flap lever for 3000 hours counts. I think all that would teach him is how undervalued he is. Oh before I go found this, thought you might like to watch it, you know.... remind you of the good ol' days:E http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photoga...hTheMighty.wmv Happy landings one and all. Tacho |
Look,we're up against a brick wall here arent we?The brain surgeon was just an analogy,maybe a poor one.The point is that all experience is invaluable in this business and many others.But experienced crews can still make mistakes I grant you,so its not a watertight guarantee but rather it offers the best chance.Let me try another example.
Gimli glider..well-known case of a 767 that ran out of fuel over Winnipeg somewhere.The pilot and co-pilot were both VERY EXPERIENCED.Been there,seen it all,done it all.The Captain was a recreational glider pilot and the FO an ex-military guy.What saved them that day was airmanship and experience,not familiarity with '67 line operation.What they drew upon had nothing to do with the ability to fly a '67 under normal line conditions.The FO knew of a disused military field from his former days as a mil pilot and the Captain knew how to sideslip and fly a deadstick landing.These things arent taught,they're not in some airline manual that you can acquire instantaneously.They're part and parcel of the most important attribute a pilot can have;namely experience. Now,lets for the sake of argument put 2 different pilots up front in that '67 on that day.The Captain has hours sure,but his experience is largely confined to day-in day-out highly-automated airline ops.He joined out of flight school and worked his way up on 73's to left seat '67.He's reasonably conscientious,practices raw data manual flying every now and then and performs well in his sim checks.He's seen one dead-stick landing in the sim in his entire career.He doesnt fly recreationally and thinks you cant side-slip a '67,only a Cessna.And the co-pilot is straight out of flight school,he's got 600 hours under his belt,300 on type.He's conscientious too,knows all the SOP's and is a pleasure to fly with.I'll ask you a question.If you were a passenger on that flight,which crew would you want?We'll assume that both crews fall into the same trap of not loading enough fuel.Be honest now,thats all I ask. I cant reiterate just how important experience is.Without it,airmanship is impossible.It provides self-confidence and the ability to intuit a situation and think laterally.Dont think for one moment,Tigs,that your ability to overcome untested waters was down to anything but experience and the self-confidence that prevented the slow creep of panic that would have subsumed a lesser pilot. You know,people always cite the tenerife collision as the reason why we have CRM today.Always listen to your co-pilot,they say.Actually,all that crash demonstrates is that steep cockpit-gradients are not only flawed but lethal.If ever there was a crash to demonstrate that inexperienced pilots dont belong in the right seat of a commercial airliner,this is it.An experienced high-timer in the right seat of that KLM 747 would have prevented the Captain from taking off at all costs.If he had had the experience,he would have had the self-esteem and confidence and he would have acted.Or the KAL cargo out of Stansted where the co-pilot let the Captain fly the aircraft into the ground following an ADI freeze.Or the 320 in Bahrain where BOTH pilots didnt know how to fly.Never mind the 320,they didnt know how to fly period.Or the 737 in Sharm-el-Sheikh,another case where fundamental basic skills were lacking.I could go on and on.You dont solve these by putting cadet pilots in the cockpit and telling the Captain "Listen to the guy next to you".You're telling the Captain to listen to someone who cant possibly know anything yet.Its not his fault,its just a fact of life.You solve it by ensuring that both the Captain and co-pilot are experienced and that both are listening to each other. Of course,the new breed of airlines dont want this,they want the cadets who pay for their training,and they'll lower the leftseat upgrade threshold because they cant find anyone else to fill the seat.Dont tell me its about CRM.Its economics. |
Rananim, in response to you question I would obviously say you want the more experienced guy:rolleyes:. BUT...and its a big But, if you had offered a third option ... i'd prefer to have them both. And in reality, in a modern jet airliner that is exactly what I have got. IE TWO PILOTS. this is the point you are missing, it is a multi crew environment:ugh:. I appreciate what you are saying with regards to experience. However by ignoring the guy in the RHS you are only steepening the cockpit gradient. It is all good and well saying that we should be shallowing it by only putting experienced guys in the RHS, but again you have failed to address how one may go about gaining experience.
And the co-pilot is straight out of flight school,he's got 600 hours under his belt,300 on type.He's conscientious too,knows all the SOP's and is a pleasure to fly with Its not about economics at all, its about the fact that commercial aviation is growing at an astounding rate and people will apply to these cadet schemes (myself included) because they know to sit in a cessna, twin otter, tiger moth...whatever and then attempt to get a job will be nigh on impossible (or hard at least) , due to the fact that there are pole greasers at every stage of thier training and career, who wont give them a job because they lack experience yet they have no way of gaining experience...because they can't get a job. Sound familiar? probably:O Happy landings. Tacho |
"Always listen to your co-pilot,they say.Actually,all that crash demonstrates is that steep cockpit-gradients are not only flawed but lethal".
"You're telling the Captain to listen to someone who cant possibly know anything yet". I think you're exagerating a bit here to get you're point accross and I'll take that into consideration. But the inexperienced RHS guy, I would argue, is in everyday operation fully capable of knowing when something is wrong. I've picked up captains on altimetersettings, powersettings, gear, and so on. In safe day to day operation this is whats needed. I fully agree that your example on the gimli glider perhaps would not have had the same outome with a less experienced crew. This is however an extreme situation and we can just hope that these types of events only happen to a crewmember when he/she has passed the 50000 mark in the logbook. In the meantime, a commander still has to listen to his copilot. What would you say if your 350 hour guy picked you up on an incorrect altimeter setting with a particularily low pressure in high terrain? Would you listen? Even though he couldn't possibly know anything yet? Would you take his advice to select gear down BEFORE the GPWS would have sounded? Not as extreme situations as the gimli glider but still potentially VERY dangerous. These small details are what makes everyday operation safe and it's dependant of that both pilots are listening to each other. /LnS |
However by ignoring the guy in the RHS you are only steepening the cockpit gradient. books and limitations will be fresh in his memory Knows all his SOPS and is a pleasure to fly with You imply that when one becomes a commercial pilot you simply get out of your cessna and up the steps into the big stuff. but again you have failed to address how one may go about gaining experience. Its not about economics at all, its about the fact that commercial aviation is growing at an astounding rate and people will apply to these cadet schemes (myself included) because they know to sit in a cessna, twin otter, tiger moth...whatever and then attempt to get a job will be nigh on impossible |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:25. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.