Should Average Pilot Experience Levels Of Each Airline Be Public?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dubai
Age: 43
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
speedrestriction- My view is that experience plays an important role in safety.
I think some European Airlines are reducing the experience levels to what I would consider to be critically low. As I said before- just like Flying around on Min. Fuel for all scenario's.
I don't have an answer for you regarding the ASR question. My view is things happen in Aviation. Given training standards between two Airlines being equal then the most experienced Airline would probably have the least ASR's.
Latetonite- What kind of argument is that, of course you should not be asked individually what your experience is. we are talking about company averages.
I can also assure you that if it was in the interest of certain Airlines to be published then it would be. It is an important part of safety, and would put pressure on Airlines to increase experience levels and would therefore only be beneficial. Transparency is vital as well.
I think some European Airlines are reducing the experience levels to what I would consider to be critically low. As I said before- just like Flying around on Min. Fuel for all scenario's.
I don't have an answer for you regarding the ASR question. My view is things happen in Aviation. Given training standards between two Airlines being equal then the most experienced Airline would probably have the least ASR's.
Latetonite- What kind of argument is that, of course you should not be asked individually what your experience is. we are talking about company averages.
I can also assure you that if it was in the interest of certain Airlines to be published then it would be. It is an important part of safety, and would put pressure on Airlines to increase experience levels and would therefore only be beneficial. Transparency is vital as well.
Last edited by kungfu panda; 10th May 2014 at 09:12.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: ...second left, past the lights.
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Interesting argument posed initially and a few peoples' arogance obviously being prodded by it. Obviously a difference between long haul and "Domestic/Regional" hours (done both so coming from a good angle here) but I pose a better question that is in desperate need and will leave a lot of red faces and people leaving/not entering the conversation possibly:
Should the public know if the pilots' qualifications & claimed hours are legitimate?
The rise of fake hours and forged licenses has surged not only throughout Asia & the subcontinent but globally , while the "gold old log-book check" (the REAL one, where the airline returns your books via secure mail some days latter after an in depth check!) has disappeared and just become a general flick through, looking for stamps. This may explain why many can not fly visually, hands-on, no automation.
Should the public know if the pilots' qualifications & claimed hours are legitimate?
The rise of fake hours and forged licenses has surged not only throughout Asia & the subcontinent but globally , while the "gold old log-book check" (the REAL one, where the airline returns your books via secure mail some days latter after an in depth check!) has disappeared and just become a general flick through, looking for stamps. This may explain why many can not fly visually, hands-on, no automation.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dubai
Age: 43
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fake hours is a different argument. I tend to believe most peoples claimed hours are close to the truth because the industry is so small that everywhere you go somebody knows somebody who knows you from a previous company. They know what you've been Flying and roughly how much. Most companies in the middle east and Asia now need your computer print out of block hours from your previous company and references covering the previous five years from "known" management Pilots.
Different argument though...
Different argument though...
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A pilot's experience has little to do with safety. For a start, the majority of prangs are with high houred, experienced pilots. So just for that reason, publishing this data would serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever. Furthermore, I don't trust the media (it's they who rely on that idiot Yates for "expert" opinion) nor the traveling public to use data in any meaningful way. A useful and worthwhile published list would be an independent score of a pilot's ability. It would also include the number of take-off and landings in the past 30 days, the amount of hand-flying vs automatic flight, the number of visual and non-precision approaches, the number of FDM exceedences etc. and so forth. But that data will never be released. There would be little long haul flying. The Queen would never fly (unless BA management massage the figures or let a "gash" line pilot fly her) and our friends at RYR would probably top the "ability" table.
I REALLY SHOULDN'T BE HERE
Kungfu Panda,
The airline that has 20 ASRs per 1000 departures might have a much more pro-active safety culture that strongly encourages incident and risk reporting thus allowing the airline to have a better awareness of where the risks are and allows it to mitigate those risks more effectively than 12 per 1000 departure airline where the risks are not being identified as successfully. Which airline is more at risk?
My point is that numbers on their own are pretty ineffective in communicating how safe an airline is. Experience is important but no more so than company culture, training, rostering/fatigue etc etc etc. As a group of professionals we probably shouldn't encourage passengers to reduce complex issues into overly simplistic equations such as experience=safe, it isn't in anyone's interest.
The airline that has 20 ASRs per 1000 departures might have a much more pro-active safety culture that strongly encourages incident and risk reporting thus allowing the airline to have a better awareness of where the risks are and allows it to mitigate those risks more effectively than 12 per 1000 departure airline where the risks are not being identified as successfully. Which airline is more at risk?
My point is that numbers on their own are pretty ineffective in communicating how safe an airline is. Experience is important but no more so than company culture, training, rostering/fatigue etc etc etc. As a group of professionals we probably shouldn't encourage passengers to reduce complex issues into overly simplistic equations such as experience=safe, it isn't in anyone's interest.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dubai
Age: 43
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speedrestriction- I agree with most of what you say, it just comes down to the fact that a large part of a safety culture is transparency. Information available to a free media is an important part in a democracy of improving safety and reducing corruption. The media appear to be so ignorant because of the lack of information provided to them.
Piltdown Man- "A Pilots experience has little to do with safety"....then you go on to call somebody else an idiot...do I need to say more?
Piltdown Man- "A Pilots experience has little to do with safety"....then you go on to call somebody else an idiot...do I need to say more?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another comparison to draw is the Cathay Second Officer cadets, whilst I'm sure all are very qualified good guys, their first 1000/1500 hours is all autopilot in, above 10000ft. But all with a legacy carrier on a wide body. Compare that to a regional TP FO. Short tight runways 4/6 sector days, lots of NPA's and circling approaches, lots of aircraft malfunctions.
Both have 2000 hours, but you can't really compare the two when it comes to average hand flying skills and experience.
Both have 2000 hours, but you can't really compare the two when it comes to average hand flying skills and experience.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if I fly with a new cadet tomorrow we have 21,400 hours in the cockpit. Would the public be reassured? If I fly with an F/O who has (on performance) been passed over for command for many years, we have 35,000 hours in the cockpit, would the public be reassured? One of my colleagues who has held a command on type for 6 years has 8,000 hours and is flying with an ex-cadet first officer who has 2500 hours, would the public be reassured? If that same captain flies with a cadet who has been with us for one year there is 9,000 hours experience in the cockpit, would the public be reassured?
When the public put their faith in an airline, it is usually on the basis that the airline is subject to, and complies with, regulatory oversight. It is on the basis that the airline has a rigorous standard of crew training, maintenance , and a general safety culture. I don't have any problem at all with somebody placing a blackboard with my (or my crews) experience written on it, at the boarding gate. I would be amazed if it made any difference to anybody at all. Would this transparency extend to gender, or age, or sexual orientation, or race or nationality, in those countries where that is permitted? Would it extend to OPC/LPC global marking? Would it extend to your training history (warts and all?)
The problem I have with the concept (and in fairness there doesn't appear to be any real end user need or demand,) Is that it is meaningless. Obviously I understand that the hypothesis is that perhaps the public could be frightened into believing a problem exists, that might otherwise help to unblock a career path for specific individuals who are simply exasperated by the fact. Should that be made transparent as well?
When the public put their faith in an airline, it is usually on the basis that the airline is subject to, and complies with, regulatory oversight. It is on the basis that the airline has a rigorous standard of crew training, maintenance , and a general safety culture. I don't have any problem at all with somebody placing a blackboard with my (or my crews) experience written on it, at the boarding gate. I would be amazed if it made any difference to anybody at all. Would this transparency extend to gender, or age, or sexual orientation, or race or nationality, in those countries where that is permitted? Would it extend to OPC/LPC global marking? Would it extend to your training history (warts and all?)
The problem I have with the concept (and in fairness there doesn't appear to be any real end user need or demand,) Is that it is meaningless. Obviously I understand that the hypothesis is that perhaps the public could be frightened into believing a problem exists, that might otherwise help to unblock a career path for specific individuals who are simply exasperated by the fact. Should that be made transparent as well?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How would it be measured?
Airlines with very long seniority systems and high rates of staff retention would have the highest average. Then the airlines that people are keen to stay with long term but recruit cadets the second. The lowest would be the airlines with a relatively high turn over of crew that recruit low hour guys too.
Point being say Easyjet. A company a lot of guys stay with long term when reaching command but recruit a lot of cadets. If an average is simply drawn across both ranks, the high hours of the captains who've stayed there a long time would pull up the average figure and mask the woefully low hours of the bulk of the new entrants, even more so in the case of BA.
What a simple average experience cheese slice would miss is the airlines with a huge gradient of experience. A better understanding would be to show the 2 ranks independently. I don't see any venture in this idea as the currency is meaningless to the public. There's no basis for comparison.
Airlines with very long seniority systems and high rates of staff retention would have the highest average. Then the airlines that people are keen to stay with long term but recruit cadets the second. The lowest would be the airlines with a relatively high turn over of crew that recruit low hour guys too.
Point being say Easyjet. A company a lot of guys stay with long term when reaching command but recruit a lot of cadets. If an average is simply drawn across both ranks, the high hours of the captains who've stayed there a long time would pull up the average figure and mask the woefully low hours of the bulk of the new entrants, even more so in the case of BA.
What a simple average experience cheese slice would miss is the airlines with a huge gradient of experience. A better understanding would be to show the 2 ranks independently. I don't see any venture in this idea as the currency is meaningless to the public. There's no basis for comparison.
Last edited by Wireless; 10th May 2014 at 01:12.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dubai
Age: 43
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The regulatory body is there to lay down an absolute minimum not to put in place an acceptable Norm, therefore from this point of view forget the regulatory body. The danger, as with fuel in recent years, managements have used the absolute minimum as the norm, I think this is clear. It has to stop.
The only way to deal with this situation, as with UK schools, is to use League tables as way to shame Airlines who do use absolute minimum flight deck experience as a norm. I understand that League tables are not perfect but their imperfections can be made clear and they can be used as a guide for consumers.
It has to be clear that experience levels in some Airlines are becoming shockingly low, where you have crew with total experience of maybe 3000 hours, all of which very localised. These crew members may not have even avoided a thunderstorm between the the two of them or made a real low visiblity Landing.
Bealzebub- I respect your views but you need to make it clear that you do have a vested interest in your argument due to your role in training which I believe is either Easyjet or CTC. It is not an unbiased opinion. All the hours argument that you put out in your post are a red herring, you know what we are talking about here, it is the real problem of super low experience crews operating together. With your intelligent articulate views please address the real problem rather than throwing out decoys.
The only way to deal with this situation, as with UK schools, is to use League tables as way to shame Airlines who do use absolute minimum flight deck experience as a norm. I understand that League tables are not perfect but their imperfections can be made clear and they can be used as a guide for consumers.
It has to be clear that experience levels in some Airlines are becoming shockingly low, where you have crew with total experience of maybe 3000 hours, all of which very localised. These crew members may not have even avoided a thunderstorm between the the two of them or made a real low visiblity Landing.
Bealzebub- I respect your views but you need to make it clear that you do have a vested interest in your argument due to your role in training which I believe is either Easyjet or CTC. It is not an unbiased opinion. All the hours argument that you put out in your post are a red herring, you know what we are talking about here, it is the real problem of super low experience crews operating together. With your intelligent articulate views please address the real problem rather than throwing out decoys.
Last edited by kungfu panda; 10th May 2014 at 09:20.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bealzebub- I respect your views but you need to make it clear that you do have a vested interest in your argument due to your role in training which I believe is either Easyjet or CTC. It is not an unbiased opinion. All the hours argument that you put out in your post are a red herring, you know what we are talking about here, it is the real problem of super low experience crews operating together. With your inteligent articulate views please address the real problem rather than throwing out decoys.
Is there a problem with
super low experience crews operating together.
If the public and the industry is concerned about safety (and they are and most certainly should be,) then look back through the accident statistics. Unfortunately, (and let me remind you of your term red herring) a very long history of such statistics is going reveal that lack of overall "experience" was anything but a contributory factor in almost all of them. On the other hand, complacency, poor training, and poor application of training, is depressingly repeated time and time again! One thing that is glaringly obvious is that "experience" as a stand alone item simply isn't addressing the problem.
I have seen quite a few "experienced" pilots over the years who have failed to maintain an acceptable standard. Unfortunately, nearly all of these examples were individuals from what might be termed "unstructured" backgrounds. Remedial training either resolves the problem or that individuals employment is terminated. The industry has moved markedly towards better application of relevant, seamless and more integrated basic and continuation training.
Panda, I would suggest to you that your narrow focus is self serving. You simply do not want to step back and see the wider picture. If you put aside your prejudice and look at that wider picture you will see that what you want to project as a problem simply isn't a problem at all. Better training, structure and integration are the seeds of better safety. Quantitative experience might well help in some cases when everything else hasn't, however I can send you box loads of accident reports that simply demonstrate time and time again that in isolation it simply isn't an acceptable substitute for better structure and training.
Has that made it clear? Has that addressed the real problem? Is it all still a red herring? Your initial conjectures were completely erroneous. I am afraid that doesn't provide much support for your follow on conjectures.
I REALLY SHOULDN'T BE HERE
Kungfu Panda
You may be interested to read the following from CAA 2011-2016 Strategic Plan:
The regulatory body is there to lay down an absolute minimum not to put in place an acceptable Norm, therefore from this point of view forget the regulatory body.
Performance based regulation
Under the Enhancing Safety Programme (ESP), we are developing a risk and performance based approach to regulation – known as Performance Based Regulation (PBR). It goes beyond simply ensuring compliance with rules, aiming to identify the highest aviation risks to the UK passenger and general public across the total aviation system, and to ensure that the management of these risks is effective. By assessing and prioritising the risks, we are able to target our resources in the most important areas and determine the safety outcomes that are most important to pursue.
Under the Enhancing Safety Programme (ESP), we are developing a risk and performance based approach to regulation – known as Performance Based Regulation (PBR). It goes beyond simply ensuring compliance with rules, aiming to identify the highest aviation risks to the UK passenger and general public across the total aviation system, and to ensure that the management of these risks is effective. By assessing and prioritising the risks, we are able to target our resources in the most important areas and determine the safety outcomes that are most important to pursue.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hours in a log book don't make pilots much safer, so experience measured in that manner is a red herring. Hours spent thumb-up-arse over the Atlantic or Pacific, napping while your colleague reads a paper is worse than useless - you're gaining no experience benefit but are still ageing and time is still passing since you last hand flew. Useful experience is dealing with unusual issues, like bad weather, tech problems, crew issues (illness or CRM issues) and dealing with cockups.
I see a mixture of colleagues, some new cadets fresh out of flying schools, some with prior GA experience and some experienced in the airlines. There is no trend in their ability; each has to be judged on merit. What is noticeable is how ability and safety follows attitude. The smart ones listen and watch closely, and rarely have to see something twice to pick it up. They cherry pick the best bits from all the skippers they fly with and make their own tailored toolkit, thinking and adapting to new situations seamlessly. The cocky ones don't learn much, having decided they know more than the old guys sitting next to them, and so have no toolkit and no adaptablity.
So, what do hours on paper signify? Sweet FA.
Having an incident per 1000 sector ratio for each company would be revealing of company cultures, which severely affect safety, and would be useful to passengers, but not break downs of pilots' hours.
I see a mixture of colleagues, some new cadets fresh out of flying schools, some with prior GA experience and some experienced in the airlines. There is no trend in their ability; each has to be judged on merit. What is noticeable is how ability and safety follows attitude. The smart ones listen and watch closely, and rarely have to see something twice to pick it up. They cherry pick the best bits from all the skippers they fly with and make their own tailored toolkit, thinking and adapting to new situations seamlessly. The cocky ones don't learn much, having decided they know more than the old guys sitting next to them, and so have no toolkit and no adaptablity.
So, what do hours on paper signify? Sweet FA.
Having an incident per 1000 sector ratio for each company would be revealing of company cultures, which severely affect safety, and would be useful to passengers, but not break downs of pilots' hours.
Should promotion to captaincy be based on total experience including that gained prior to joining an airline so as to maximise the experience of the captains? Logical but I doubt that the idea would go down well with the crews of legacy carriers.
European national carriers have put low hour DEPs into the RHS since the introduction of the two pilot cockpit. Its generally considered that ab initio training schemes produce very high quality pilots. I don't know whether there is any statistical correlation between safety and the rate of growth of the aviation industry (which is the primary determinant of average experience). Safety rates have certainly improved since the days of high growth in the 60s but I suspect that there are other factors at work explaining this.
There are those who believe that the best pilots are ex-military (particularly in the US where the preference seems to be for ex fighter types). The recent 1,500 hour regulation in the U.S. includes a limited exemption for ex-military pilots. I've spoken to some senior pilots who would prefer lower hours ab initio trainees than higher hours ex RAF or Navy. (Note, I am not a pilot myself, my father was a military pilot for a time. Also I know that generalising is often not helpful.)
In some other areas there is often an preference for younger people who are considered quicker at picking things up. This is particularly true in I.T. (where in truth there is age discrimination). Might there be a conflict between older experienced flyers with better flying skills and younger guys who can find their way around glass cockpits quicker?
European national carriers have put low hour DEPs into the RHS since the introduction of the two pilot cockpit. Its generally considered that ab initio training schemes produce very high quality pilots. I don't know whether there is any statistical correlation between safety and the rate of growth of the aviation industry (which is the primary determinant of average experience). Safety rates have certainly improved since the days of high growth in the 60s but I suspect that there are other factors at work explaining this.
There are those who believe that the best pilots are ex-military (particularly in the US where the preference seems to be for ex fighter types). The recent 1,500 hour regulation in the U.S. includes a limited exemption for ex-military pilots. I've spoken to some senior pilots who would prefer lower hours ab initio trainees than higher hours ex RAF or Navy. (Note, I am not a pilot myself, my father was a military pilot for a time. Also I know that generalising is often not helpful.)
In some other areas there is often an preference for younger people who are considered quicker at picking things up. This is particularly true in I.T. (where in truth there is age discrimination). Might there be a conflict between older experienced flyers with better flying skills and younger guys who can find their way around glass cockpits quicker?
latetonight had the correct answer here.
There is no point in publicising information which will be interpreted out of context by some media commentator.
There is no point in publicising information which will be interpreted out of context by some media commentator.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may be to the advantage of an airline to list generic average numbers if it beats the competator, the same as average age of the fleet of aircraft. Also incident percentage records. Could start a whole lot of mud slinging in a marketing war as on time performance, direct flights etc are also factors.
As to the correlation between experience/hours/hours on type etc. There are so many variables that it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to determine who is the better pilot. The most difficult factor I can think of is a high time pilot becoming complacent and the low time pilot suffering from a lack of experience. The low time but sharp and vigilant pilot with a high level ov awareness could be the better pilot while the high time pilot who could have seen and experienced just about all one can knowing quickly what to do in any adverse condition eg: suix city, Sully on the Hudson etc. Wow having said that how many of you have ever heard of a novice saving a flight from certain desaster, does anyone remember the name of the F/O flying with Sullenberg?
As to the correlation between experience/hours/hours on type etc. There are so many variables that it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to determine who is the better pilot. The most difficult factor I can think of is a high time pilot becoming complacent and the low time pilot suffering from a lack of experience. The low time but sharp and vigilant pilot with a high level ov awareness could be the better pilot while the high time pilot who could have seen and experienced just about all one can knowing quickly what to do in any adverse condition eg: suix city, Sully on the Hudson etc. Wow having said that how many of you have ever heard of a novice saving a flight from certain desaster, does anyone remember the name of the F/O flying with Sullenberg?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on, I know FO Skiles had more total time than sullenberger and had actually been a Capt on another type previously, but in Sullenbergers book he makes specific reference to the fact FO Skiles had only just come on type as being a huge benefit as he was very familiar with the QRH and knew the exact pages to look at.
Now tell a passenger the first officer has 100 hours on type, on this baseless comparison of hours most would probably get off.
Now tell a passenger the first officer has 100 hours on type, on this baseless comparison of hours most would probably get off.