Should Average Pilot Experience Levels Of Each Airline Be Public?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: .
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should Average Pilot Experience Levels Of Each Airline Be Public?
Case in point, the FAA post-Colgan. But does 1500hrs maketh the pilot, probably not. That's a different argument.
An experience level league table without context is pointless. To add context would make the league table pointless as it would be a massive document. Ergo let the regulators do their jobs and hold them to account.
You say that transparency is part of improving safety and reducing corruption. Would transparency be meaningful in this area after all the replies you've had so far? Who is corrupt?
I'd bet that there are more commercial jet transport incidents & accidents attributable to folk with very high hours than very low hours. I sense a personal agenda here, as your point is moot.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Case in point, the FAA post-Colgan. But does 1500hrs maketh the pilot, probably not. That's a different argument.
The Colgan captain had around 3,300 hours and the first officer 2,200 hours. On Air France the captain had 11,000 hours and the two f/o's 6,600 and 3,000 hours respectively. Not a single one of these pilots would have been precluded by a 1500 hour minimum tariff. The Colgan captain had a history of numerous failed check rides during his training and was regularly commuting some 1200 miles from his home in Florida. The first officer was also regularly commuting 3000 miles from her home in Seattle. Fatigue was cited as a likely contributory factor.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The insurance industry seem to know how to asses risk when writing paper on the various aircraft and pilots we {my wife and I} have owned and employed over the years , if they don't get it right they will be belly up in no time, {as indeed did happen to a discount insurer a few years back} maybe we should look at whatever system they use to asses risk in a more meaningful way than straight hours?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dubai
Age: 43
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but it's absurd to suggest that I have an agenda because I believe that the low experience levels operated by some Airlines needs to be addressed. The managements of these Airlines and the training organisations clearly have the agenda.
Bealzebub, your historical information is interesting but it is irrelevant because the era of the super low experience crew has only been around for a very short while and statistically there has not been time to prove it safe or not.
Experience is like a brand, you buy Coca-Cola rather than the other cola because you know you can trust it. You and your 15,000 hour mate in the RHS are a brand, we know you've seen a lot and we know we can trust you. That 3000 hour crew may have been exceptional in the simulator but we certainly don't know yet if we can trust them in the real world.
Even I would not send my family with that 3000 hour crew so of course this information would never be allowed to be public.
As somebody previously posted, Soux city would have been a lot more bereaved families and the Hudson River would have been the New york city disaster had it not been for very experienced pilots on board.
I don't doubt that training and good procedures are very important, but experience is even more important. League tables would show who is cutting corners on this most vital aspect of safety. There is a need for it and would be a demand for it, if it was available.
Forget discussing the self improver, it hasn't existed for the best part of two decades.
Bealzebub, your historical information is interesting but it is irrelevant because the era of the super low experience crew has only been around for a very short while and statistically there has not been time to prove it safe or not.
Experience is like a brand, you buy Coca-Cola rather than the other cola because you know you can trust it. You and your 15,000 hour mate in the RHS are a brand, we know you've seen a lot and we know we can trust you. That 3000 hour crew may have been exceptional in the simulator but we certainly don't know yet if we can trust them in the real world.
Even I would not send my family with that 3000 hour crew so of course this information would never be allowed to be public.
As somebody previously posted, Soux city would have been a lot more bereaved families and the Hudson River would have been the New york city disaster had it not been for very experienced pilots on board.
I don't doubt that training and good procedures are very important, but experience is even more important. League tables would show who is cutting corners on this most vital aspect of safety. There is a need for it and would be a demand for it, if it was available.
Forget discussing the self improver, it hasn't existed for the best part of two decades.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Telling the public meaningless numbers about pilot hours, that are supposed to indicate safety levels does not seem like a great idea to me. However I'm sure that in the event of an accident, the media will have a field day if one or both of the pilots is found to have low levels of experience.
It's the job of the regulator to ensure that standards are kept high and part of that is maintaining experience levels. Instead, many European regulators have allowed a dysfunctional environment to build up where experience is seen as worthless. Airlines seek to drive everything down to the minimum and attract talent from a pool of applicant, massively diluted by being based on the ability to pay for training. Huge staff turnover in some cases is just seen as means of raising more training revenue and driving cost down further. This is what has to be got accross to the public.
It's the job of the regulator to ensure that standards are kept high and part of that is maintaining experience levels. Instead, many European regulators have allowed a dysfunctional environment to build up where experience is seen as worthless. Airlines seek to drive everything down to the minimum and attract talent from a pool of applicant, massively diluted by being based on the ability to pay for training. Huge staff turnover in some cases is just seen as means of raising more training revenue and driving cost down further. This is what has to be got accross to the public.
I REALLY SHOULDN'T BE HERE
Kungfu Panda, you wrote:
"Bealzebub, your historical information is interesting but it is irrelevant because the era of the super low experience crew has only been around for a very short while and statistically there has not been time to prove it safe or not."
On what data are you basing your assertion? If you can share your source perhaps we can have a more informed debate. In the past two airlines I have worked for (both big companies) the average flightdeck experience is significantly higher than when I started flying a decade ago.
"Bealzebub, your historical information is interesting but it is irrelevant because the era of the super low experience crew has only been around for a very short while and statistically there has not been time to prove it safe or not."
On what data are you basing your assertion? If you can share your source perhaps we can have a more informed debate. In the past two airlines I have worked for (both big companies) the average flightdeck experience is significantly higher than when I started flying a decade ago.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dubai
Age: 43
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
speedrestriction- I prefer not to talk about the individual Airlines, I understand that many Airlines operate with high average experience.
There are a couple airlines which I know are moving to operating 2500 hour Captains or little more with recently graduated cadets. As JS says "I couldn't disagree with this more" to me it is obviously unsafe.
I do believe that regulators should be answering much more to the media or to their government but currently they seem to have a free hand.
There are a couple airlines which I know are moving to operating 2500 hour Captains or little more with recently graduated cadets. As JS says "I couldn't disagree with this more" to me it is obviously unsafe.
I do believe that regulators should be answering much more to the media or to their government but currently they seem to have a free hand.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dubai
Age: 43
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just want to post something my wife just said after reading this thread:
A few years ago her little cousin did an advanced driving course with the RAC. He was bragging to her that he was now officially a safer driver than his Mum and Dad. Three weeks later he crashed his brand new MX-5 into a tree.
years later he acknowledges he was a little immature.
A few years ago her little cousin did an advanced driving course with the RAC. He was bragging to her that he was now officially a safer driver than his Mum and Dad. Three weeks later he crashed his brand new MX-5 into a tree.
years later he acknowledges he was a little immature.
I did my first flight as captain of a four-engined turboprop with exactly 1474 hrs and 30 mins in my log book. I retired in 2006 having flown professionally for 47 years without even scraping the paint off a wingtip and having subsequently taught dozens and dozens of young men how to be professional airmen.
To my knowledge, not one of them has ever let me down.
I really think you would do yourself an enormous favour to drop this ridiculous argument.
You are quite simply trying to flog a dead horse and the average punter wouldn't give a monkey's for your idea even if you could get someone in serious power to listen to you.
Sorry to be so negative.
To my knowledge, not one of them has ever let me down.
I really think you would do yourself an enormous favour to drop this ridiculous argument.
You are quite simply trying to flog a dead horse and the average punter wouldn't give a monkey's for your idea even if you could get someone in serious power to listen to you.
Sorry to be so negative.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dubai
Age: 43
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks JW411- I totally agree that I'm flogging a dead horse but sorry, I want to flog it...
I don't think the argument is ridiculous.
I don't have your experience but I have enough to know that you get safer the more you have, generally. I am also aware that the experience levels in some Airlines are becoming much lower now than they were at any Airline before you retired. Respect for experience has also been largely discarded since you retired.
Do me favour though, don't tell me that I'm digging myself a hole again, I think this is the second time. Thank you.
I don't think the argument is ridiculous.
I don't have your experience but I have enough to know that you get safer the more you have, generally. I am also aware that the experience levels in some Airlines are becoming much lower now than they were at any Airline before you retired. Respect for experience has also been largely discarded since you retired.
Do me favour though, don't tell me that I'm digging myself a hole again, I think this is the second time. Thank you.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but it's absurd to suggest that I have an agenda because I believe that the low experience levels operated by some Airlines needs to be addressed. The managements of these Airlines and the training organisations clearly have the agenda.
Bealzebub, your historical information is interesting but it is irrelevant because the era of the super low experience crew has only been around for a very short while and statistically there has not been time to prove it safe or not
I do believe that regulators should be answering much more to the media or to their government but currently they seem to have a free hand
On what data are you basing your assertion? If you can share your source perhaps we can have a more informed debate. In the past two airlines I have worked for (both big companies) the average flightdeck experience is significantly higher than when I started flying a decade ago
Look, the vast majority of professional pilots are committed, dedicated, mature, and intelligent individuals. Experience is then simply a measure of the quantitative time period they have spent developing those qualities in those roles. These days I see a lot of relatively young F/O's who attain the requirements on a sustained basis for a command at or around the minimum levels set down for such consideration. Unless they consistently demonstrate those standards that promotion will simply not happen. It isn't a right of passage or indeed a right of anything. Many individuals will not meet the required standards at the minimum point for doing so, and so will require more "experience" and development in their current roles before being considered further. A few will simply never make the grade. Of course in this latter group you are going to find some of the most "experienced" F/O's on the planet. However that "experience" in some cases is a by-product of not meeting the necessary standards for promotion. Do you think the "media" should be provided with this information so it can provide the transparency and "league tables" with which the public can then supposedly make their informed choices?
league tables are all well and good in reinforcing what you want to believe, but they rarely provide an honest or accurate overall picture. For example, take one that already exists such as delay statistics. There are few of us that aren't familiar with the concept of pushing back off stand on schedule to satisfy the league tables, only to spend lengthy periods of time sitting on a remote holding stand waiting for our delayed slot time to roll around. Similarly, those airlines who simply cancel their flights in order to avoid appearing in the delay statistics. I think the OP mentioned school league tables, yet the best (often private) schools are exempt from appearing in such tables thereby distorting the real picture.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dubai
Age: 43
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JS- I absolutely do not ignore the evidence presented to me, I think as you can tell, I have read all the posts written in reply to mine.
I regard Easyjet highly as an Airline who have a structured career path which appears to respect it's pilots experience and wishes to retain that experience. Unfortunately that does not apply to some other European operators.
What evidence would you like me to back up my opinion with?
I know you quote Ryanair and Easyjet's safety record which in the case of Easyjet has been very good. I would imagine that experience levels at Easyjet are going up. However other LCC's in Europe are shifting further to lower experience.
Have you seen enough with 2500 hours to be a Captain for the first time and fly with newly graduated F/O's?
Am I wrong in making the assertion that this is happening?
In a few months they will reduce minimum command time to 1500 hours and you will articulately be telling me how safe that is, and that I'm flogging a dead horse complaining about it.
I regard Easyjet highly as an Airline who have a structured career path which appears to respect it's pilots experience and wishes to retain that experience. Unfortunately that does not apply to some other European operators.
What evidence would you like me to back up my opinion with?
I know you quote Ryanair and Easyjet's safety record which in the case of Easyjet has been very good. I would imagine that experience levels at Easyjet are going up. However other LCC's in Europe are shifting further to lower experience.
Have you seen enough with 2500 hours to be a Captain for the first time and fly with newly graduated F/O's?
Am I wrong in making the assertion that this is happening?
In a few months they will reduce minimum command time to 1500 hours and you will articulately be telling me how safe that is, and that I'm flogging a dead horse complaining about it.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Europe
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair pilots are trained to good standards, but so are many other airlines as well. The issue with inexperience though in my book if something goes wrong is you are less likely to perform as well as somebody having more experience. The more you do do something , anything, the actual skill gradually gets transferred from the one part of the memory to the motor memory and once there it enables you to free capacity and focus on other things while flying. Improving decision making as you donīt have to think so much of the actual flying, whilst still flying to good standards.
Of course there are ways airlines can try and mitigate lack of experience and one of them is to implement procedure instead micromanaging, for the inexperienced to learn by rote and apply live if needed. But to me it is still not the same.
To me itīs a function of capacity, ability and experience. Ability and capacity increase with experience so there is no shortcuts.
Of course with experience comes complacency, not doing the right thing, despite knowing better, but that is another issue.
Of course there are ways airlines can try and mitigate lack of experience and one of them is to implement procedure instead micromanaging, for the inexperienced to learn by rote and apply live if needed. But to me it is still not the same.
To me itīs a function of capacity, ability and experience. Ability and capacity increase with experience so there is no shortcuts.
Of course with experience comes complacency, not doing the right thing, despite knowing better, but that is another issue.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: UAE
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread theme is a load of 
.
Give the public experience levels? WTF for and who precisely is going to be paid to accurately collate, validate and publicise the data? You clearly have never worked outside a 1st world country before....
'Experience is an inference of ability'
That's why people give a 'work sample' at a job interview, in our case a sim ride.
Not foolproof, but a more valid way of measuring ability.
. Give the public experience levels? WTF for and who precisely is going to be paid to accurately collate, validate and publicise the data? You clearly have never worked outside a 1st world country before....
'Experience is an inference of ability'
That's why people give a 'work sample' at a job interview, in our case a sim ride.
Not foolproof, but a more valid way of measuring ability.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: .
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm suggesting a personal agenda, as you're ignoring the logical, well reasoned replies! You're not bringing any facts or evidence to the discussion.
An airline I used to work for upgraded at 1800 hours if you fitted the bill and passed the assessment. No accidents on their record.
Experience isn't like a brand, a brand is like a brand, and that is all about marketing. Ryanair was founded 11 years before easyJet, but I'd suggest that the public would have a higher opinion of easyJet. Ryanair and Virgin Atlantic started up in the same year, same argument applies.
Extensive levels of low experience could be a concern, but that is a matter for the regulator and not to be resolved by publishing a table in the Daily Mail.
An airline I used to work for upgraded at 1800 hours if you fitted the bill and passed the assessment. No accidents on their record.
Experience isn't like a brand, a brand is like a brand, and that is all about marketing. Ryanair was founded 11 years before easyJet, but I'd suggest that the public would have a higher opinion of easyJet. Ryanair and Virgin Atlantic started up in the same year, same argument applies.
Extensive levels of low experience could be a concern, but that is a matter for the regulator and not to be resolved by publishing a table in the Daily Mail.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dubai
Age: 43
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
calmcavok- Thankyou, there is no personal agenda.
I believe clearly that there is an issue here which I want to address, I understand that nothing will change by addressing it here but I'd like to put this view out there.
The problem is not the BA cadetship, which has as rightly said been going for many years, or the Easyjet Cadet scheme which is correctly combined with a career structure which allows cadets to be introduced into a professional environment with an abundance of experience.
The issue we are discussing is a new situation where non-career structures are introducing cadets into an environment where there is an abundance of very low experience within the Captain group and even the training Captain group, low experience in combination with very localised Flying.
I agree that I don't present a lot of evidence but if I'm wrong and this does not happen then please clarify that for me because my understanding is that it is happening.
If the Airline you worked for truly had a program of upgrading 1800 hour First Officers to Captain on passenger Jet Aircraft then I am absolutely horrified.
I believe clearly that there is an issue here which I want to address, I understand that nothing will change by addressing it here but I'd like to put this view out there.
The problem is not the BA cadetship, which has as rightly said been going for many years, or the Easyjet Cadet scheme which is correctly combined with a career structure which allows cadets to be introduced into a professional environment with an abundance of experience.
The issue we are discussing is a new situation where non-career structures are introducing cadets into an environment where there is an abundance of very low experience within the Captain group and even the training Captain group, low experience in combination with very localised Flying.
I agree that I don't present a lot of evidence but if I'm wrong and this does not happen then please clarify that for me because my understanding is that it is happening.
If the Airline you worked for truly had a program of upgrading 1800 hour First Officers to Captain on passenger Jet Aircraft then I am absolutely horrified.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the Airline you worked for truly had a program of upgrading 1800 hour First Officers to Captain on passenger Jet Aircraft then I am absolutely horrified.
An airline I used to work for upgraded at 1800 hours if you fitted the bill and passed the assessment.
You started this thread by asking:
I'm not trying to argue the benefit of experience or not but the first issue the media was interested in after both the Asiana accident and the Malaysian disappearance was the experience level of the crews.
It seems to me that Pilot experience is of public interest and to maintain transparency in the industry would it not be reasonable for an experience league table to exist for use by the media?
It seems to me that Pilot experience is of public interest and to maintain transparency in the industry would it not be reasonable for an experience league table to exist for use by the media?
I doubt much of the "public" would have any real idea of what levels of quantitative "experience" constitute typical benchmarks in any event. Is 200 hours a lot? 2000 hours? 20,000 hours? Even for those that might share your "horror" at the thought of their flight being crewed with a level that didn't (for whatever reason) match their personal level of acceptance, the random and dynamic nature of crewing a flight means they wouldn't know what the quantitative "experience" level was until they were about to board the flight in any event.
The issue we are discussing is a new situation where non-career structures are introducing cadets into an environment where there is an abundance of very low experience within the Captain group and even the training Captain group, low experience in combination with very localised Flying.
I am not entirely sure I understand what you mean by the term "very localized flying"? If I take it to mean a lack of route variety, then yes that can become an issue. An airline that flies short haul routes to major airports can result in a lack of pilot exposure to more basic airports and less widespread application of non-precision or visual approaches. However an awareness of that problem (where it exists) results in a greater use of simulator exposure and real world opportunities being provided as and when they can be. However that problem is not contained to cadets, it is usually just as prevalent in experienced pilots as well.
Low experience is the same as age. Give it time and it will cure itself. I think I would most definitely fit into your definition of "experienced" and yet I do not have the slightest qualm about flying with a cadet tomorrow, or indeed a low hour f/o, or an f/o with 3000 hours, or an f/o with 20,000 hours who might have been passed over for command for the last 25 years. In a typical month I am likely to fly with all of those examples. So why are you horrified and I am not? Similarly I do not have the slightest qualm that my family might get on board an aircraft tomorrow crewed by the most junior captain and junior first officers in the company. If I have no cause for concern why on Earth should the general public?
What evidence would you like me to back up my opinion with?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dubai
Age: 43
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bealzebub- Clearly your argument is very Airline specific, it is obvious that your company is able to absorb Pilots of all experience levels into the structure and provide appropriate training.
I may not have provided the evidence for my argument that you would like to see but nobody has denied that what I have said is happening.
I agree with you that training and ability is important. I don't believe that simulator training is a means to an end in itself. However much ability you have it is unlikely, with the low levels of experience which we are talking about i.e. Captain 2500 hours, F/O 250 hours, that you have seen sufficient. As an example I remember as an F/O with just under 3000 hours Making an approach to Bergamo, the ATIS gave cavok and so I was fat dumb and happy, passing about 1400' on the approach with me manually Flying we were passed a visibility of 400m. Never having seen an approach ban situation in real life and the fact that my mental capacity was eaten up somewhat by manual Flying, I would have continued but for the experienced Captain in the left seat.
You could argue that it is just me that is capable of making this type of mistake with low experience but I don't think so, and my standard of operation in the simulator Always met the required level.
The point I am making is that however good someone is in the simulator, given the real life situation, if they have not got experience to fall back on they may not cope well.
If they fit the bill and pass the assessment should a Cadet go directly into the left seat with no experience?
I may not have provided the evidence for my argument that you would like to see but nobody has denied that what I have said is happening.
I agree with you that training and ability is important. I don't believe that simulator training is a means to an end in itself. However much ability you have it is unlikely, with the low levels of experience which we are talking about i.e. Captain 2500 hours, F/O 250 hours, that you have seen sufficient. As an example I remember as an F/O with just under 3000 hours Making an approach to Bergamo, the ATIS gave cavok and so I was fat dumb and happy, passing about 1400' on the approach with me manually Flying we were passed a visibility of 400m. Never having seen an approach ban situation in real life and the fact that my mental capacity was eaten up somewhat by manual Flying, I would have continued but for the experienced Captain in the left seat.
You could argue that it is just me that is capable of making this type of mistake with low experience but I don't think so, and my standard of operation in the simulator Always met the required level.
The point I am making is that however good someone is in the simulator, given the real life situation, if they have not got experience to fall back on they may not cope well.
If they fit the bill and pass the assessment should a Cadet go directly into the left seat with no experience?