Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Terms and Endearment
Reload this Page >

Why do we not require 1500 hours for a RHS job ?

Terms and Endearment The forum the bean counters hoped would never happen. Your news on pay, rostering, allowances, extras and negotiations where you work - scheduled, charter or contract.

Why do we not require 1500 hours for a RHS job ?

Old 3rd Nov 2014, 16:34
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: On the road
Posts: 159
I think the question here is of keeping the career as a career. The current situation is a road that will dwindle into a track. It's getting to a point that whatever company you head for as a cadet, that's your lot as once you become experienced you won't be able to move as companies take only cadets. Sure, at the min there is still small amounts of experienced recruitment but you have to bare in mind how much the recruitment situation has changed in 10 years. It's not beyond the wit of man that it will be cadet only per company in the not to distant. Regulators think its safe, employers love the cheapness and the fact you can start a cadet on 25k.

As a discussion of safety, whilst incap events in Europe for a straight out of training and line checked 250 hour guy can be assisted by ATC, it's another thing if it happens on a wide body heading to Africa at night, middle of Siberia or over the Indian Ocean on poor HF and no cpdlc com. I do think there is a case for international ops over sparce areas or dodgy parts to require a mix of quality airline hours and a strong training background.

A CTC guy out of line training has had what, a brief 40 hour rating and LST on top of basic training. We all know you only get to do things briefly on type ratings. Maybe incap was covered once or twice, briefly on rto, 80kts and perhaps a line flight scenario on a short UK sector in the sim As for safety pilot for weeks, ha, well I've seen it for more like 2-3 days of line flying. The basic training on the twin is all IFR procedures, not really actual airline style , more light aircraft things -vac pump failures, radios blinking a bit and OEI approaches. An experienced line pilot WITH a good training background has in say 10 years of flying, additionally been exposed to say 20-30 recurrents and all the experience of picking things up and advice up along the way and has seen a lot of real stuff happen. That's when it's time to set sail over remote lands to crap holes in the middle of the night.

Last edited by Cliff Secord; 3rd Nov 2014 at 16:52.
Cliff Secord is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2014, 17:08
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 840
Originally Posted by Cliff Secord
As a discussion of safety, whilst incap events in Europe for a straight out of training and line checked 250 hour guy can be assisted by ATC, it's another thing if it happens on a wide body heading to Africa at night, middle of Siberia or over the Indian Ocean on poor HF and no cpdlc com. I do think there is a case for international ops over sparce areas or dodgy parts to require a mix of quality airline hours and a strong training background.
How many airlines put guys with 250 hours on long haul? And if they do, how many pilot incapacitations they've had on these routes in the last two decades? And how many of them ended up tragically? They certainly aren't LCCs you mention (between the lines) in the first paragraph.

Personally, I think you have to adapt to 3rd world operations regardless if you have 250 hours and a wet-ink licence or you have been flying for 1500 hours in Europe with babysitting radar-equipped ATC and ILS-to-ILS routes in a brand new aircraft that never breaks down.
FlyingStone is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2014, 17:19
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Denver,Co USA
Age: 72
Posts: 331
1500 hours is far from a hard number in the US. There are a lot of exceptions for people going through approved training programs or military. I don't have any data, but would guess that most young people interested in being a professional pilot would be going through one of these programs.
Rick777 is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2014, 17:36
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 213
I think the answer to the OPs question is that aviation regulation isn't always very forward thinking, regulatory changes often are made only after an event has occurred. Over here, we have yet to see a fatal incident involving a low-hour F/O who has paid for the training themselves.

That said, one would think that the Kos incident back in 2006 would have really given the regulators something to think about. Incidentally none of the three safety recommendations from the AAIB report into the Kos incident concerned pilot selection, despite the fact the F/O had failed simulator assessments which formed the selection process for his training. Despite my only flying being in the world of gliding, it seems to me that the key problem here of pilot selection based on ability to pay as opposed to ability to fly was missed.
Chris the Robot is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2014, 18:03
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,510
Chris: please refresh my memory about Kos.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2014, 18:07
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: under the sea
Posts: 2,291
Air Accidents Investigation: Download PDF document
tubby linton is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2014, 20:15
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 413
So he failed his CPL twice, IR 3 times, had control taken from him on 9 landings out of 28 that he'd flown on the Airbus...
Obviously got "the right stuff" that airlines looks for these days, which has nothing to do with flying skill and prowess, but passing fancy selection tests which bear little relevance to flying, and the ability to pay for 150 hours of flying an Airbus. The sort of person the military would probably "bin", but who is able to keep paying in the civil world, with the end result being a grounded aeroplane.
Fantastic.
sapperkenno is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2014, 21:10
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 52N 20E
Posts: 713
Hmmmmm.... Very interesting reading that one.
Just wondering how far out on a (MPL) trip, that a similar scenario wont be re-visted again?
Smokie is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2014, 21:19
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: outside the box
Age: 35
Posts: 82
Sapperkenno, bang on!
Its not about having cadets in the flightdeck, its about having people with the ''right stuff'' which is pretty basic if you ask me.. Its alright to fail a checkride if there was a good reason behind it but when you see this guy's history this is unacceptable..
Bottomline: If you have the money you get the job no matter what.

An other threat I 've noticed, is that while 99% of the people usually are totally fine to fly with there is that 1% that are complete or partially psychos in the flightdeck. I never had any psychological check before or during my brief career so far, but I wonder if it wouldn't be a bit safer to have one. Though I know some airlines do a full personality check, I know for sure that many others don't. A bit off track maybe but I find it relevant..

Last edited by Jetpipe.; 3rd Nov 2014 at 23:23.
Jetpipe. is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2014, 21:39
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 213
I think one of the concerns with the MPL is that the majority of schemes which I have seen involve Airbus types. Whilst I don't want to debate Airbus vs. Boeing etc. I believe that the PNF cannot "feel" the control inputs of the PF, indeed from what I'm aware pilots can make contradictory inputs which cancel each other out unless the "takeover" button is pressed.

Once or twice in a K13 glider, the instructor said that I overcontrolled slightly, he could feel the control inputs I was making and hence something that could have otherwise become a bad habit was resolved early in training.

I think the significance of this is that since a lot of the MPL training is done in Airbus simulators, it must surely be difficult for an instructor to spot minor concerns early in training which could become significant over time. Slightly worrying when the airline can only pick from a narrow demographic of applicants (those who can fund the training) if you ask me.
Chris the Robot is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2014, 23:02
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 52N 20E
Posts: 713
Wrt Psychometric and more importantly Psychological testing and analysis, I had taken these for 2 different airlines a few years apart and totally independent. I asked for a copy of the results on both occasions, as I was actually entitled to in those days and was amazed to find that they were virtually a mirror image of each others results. I was very pleasantly surprised that, that particular system actually worked.
Smokie is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2014, 01:03
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 66
Posts: 3,332
Don't forget, the FAA rule is an Airline Transport Pilot license, not 1,500 hours. Doesn't seem wrong to require airline pilots to have and AIRLINE Transport Pilot license to me. And a shortage of pilots doesn't hurt T&Cs like having marginal, PTF, guys off the street.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2014, 02:30
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: On the road
Posts: 159
How many airlines put guys with 250 hours on long haul? And if they do, how many pilot incapacitations they've had on these routes in the last two decades? And how many of them ended up tragically? They certainly aren't LCCs you mention (between the lines) in the first paragraph.
I didn't say there were any. Fair enough. I'm not banging the safe drum. They clearly think its safe. Just a point for a case I felt worth minor consideration. Anyway the main point I have always felt is trying to keep this as a career. It will be a career of sorts but will change rapidly I think in the next 10 years. Pay will stay the same, inflation will go up. More akin to a current 25-30k job. The command value will shrink, train drivers on freight earn 45k basic. It'll happen to command salaries. Why shouldnt it? There's not much to actually keep value, no safety issue, no supply problem. As mentioned the old days are history. There's no reason why VAA shouldn't recruit cadets as prime candidates and just top up with instant coffee trained pilots when short or expanding. It's annoying but what can you do.
Cliff Secord is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2014, 03:07
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: West Coast Canada
Posts: 3,534
I read the KOS report and one line in blew me away. When on the line flying his IOE flights the Co -Pilot had to be cautioned to look up and not continue to fly the Flight Director bars below 200 feet AGL.

I don't think you will ever see a similar observation for someone with 1500 hrs who is starting his IOE.

This is what you get with straight out of the Sim Children of the Magenta
Big Pistons Forever is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2014, 09:09
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 504
There have been various private medical colleges, operating for profit, based in 3rd world countries, promising to accept virtually anyone, and turn students into medical doctors for a hefty fee. They tend to get shut down sooner or later, and their graduates find it impossible to get their credentials accepted. I'm not a fan of excessive bureaucracy, but maybe a little more oversight for pilot training would not hurt. Also...maybe some public funding for serious training institutions? Akin to public universities that train professionals like medical doctors, dentists, etc. A public university in Norway has a pilot training program, a 3 year degree, including "frozen" ATPL etc (but much less than 1500h). It's essentially free for participants, and there's scholarships to cover cost of living, yet selection is rigorous. I've yet to hear that these graduates have big problems finding a job....and I'd venture a guess that after rigorous selection, most of them have the "right stuff". A high quality subsidized training program, like some flag carriers' cadet training, military aviation, or this public university, can attract and select students that have "the right stuff", early on. This is vastly different from commercial schools that profit from accepting almost everyone, essentially postponing selection.
deptrai is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2014, 09:29
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,510
Ref: 1500hrs in a 2 crew jet.
Having watched programs about Bush flying in Botswana, Ice pilots in Alaska, Air Susi in Indonesia I wonder about this argument. In these theatres of operation the 'blind faith' flying public, and in the case of Botswana in particular some of them are very wealthy, climb aboard a single engine single crew a/c. The chappie up front might have anything from 250-800hrs. Nice new shiny licences in the hands of hour builders. Their learning curve must be steep beyond belief. In the case of Susi Air it was frightening to watch sometimes.
In a word I think the 1500hr rule might be a diversion away from the root cause of the real problem and a sop to various lobbies.
In teaching TQ's we are constantly looking for the root cause of a mis-handled manoeuvre. That is what we focus on. In the case of many incidents/accidents a 1500hr threshold would not have solved the root cause.
I have a much greater concern about the lack of experience in LHS at 1st command, where too much reliance is placed upon SOP's, high class ATC environment, fully hi-tech airports and ultra reliable machinery to keep the newbie captain safe. In my experience the problems I had to deal with and solve rarely came with an answer in QRH. The real challenge was preventing matters ever becoming a problem in the first place. I wonder if 4 years concentrated up/down round the houses of EU is enough.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2014, 11:10
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 72
Posts: 1,196
A chap I know, from a highly privileged background, took up flying as a hobby....
Looking for challenges led him to an IMC and Night ratings.......he decided to try for a Commercial licence, not because he wanted to fly shiny jets, but simply to improve himself.
AFAIK, the school concerned was North Lincoln/Southeast Yorkshire based, They boasted a very high success rate.
SIMPLY BECAUSE PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS WERE RIGOROUSLY SELECTED ON ABILITY TO PERFORM.

Needless to say, he qualified. He was adamant that all the cash in the world would not have bought a place on that course....(OTOH, if you couldn't raise the finance, you couldn't join.)
Like him, all students should do their research and weed out the the sausage-machine enterprises who'se driving criteria is "can you pay"
Yes, he wound up instructing to build hours. also did pleasure-flights for a bit of fun and aerial photography. To that particular person,commercial flying is just a sideline. He used to keep a tail-dragger to play in. a good, safe Pilot,who has natural ability.
cockney steve is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2014, 11:24
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Vietnam
Posts: 1,246
You can put it any way you want but Ryan an Ezy and many others have proved that you can take a 200 hour person and put them in a jet and 3-5 years later upgrade them to Captain and the planes don't fall out of the sky.

The damage is already irreversible.
pilotchute is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2014, 14:36
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Europa
Posts: 612
1500 and all that......

Depends what you mean by experience.

If training is the foundation, experience is the building. How high the building can go depends on the depth of the foundation (eg: Military or MPL) and quality of the construction (later flying).

AF447 was not pilot incapacitation. Two Integrated route pilots up front and a bleary eyed Captain arrived after the stall warner had given up.

AF32: How many 1000h up front of that A380?


Colgan 3407: Captain had low hours on joining and paid to fly B1900 in previous "job" and failed many flight/sim tests. FO had minimal I/F and night time.


RE: EU LoCos:

See www.chirp.co.uk/downloads/ATFB/ATFB101.pdf

Another link to Kos:

Uncorrected poor technique led trainee to land A320 hard - 12/12/2008 - Flight Global
angelorange is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2014, 15:49
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,510
many others have proved that you can take a 200 hour person and put them in a jet and 3-5 years later upgrade them to Captain and the planes don't fall out of the sky.

on an ideal day. I agree. This debate is now coming full circle as I once again assert that the pax expect the chappie in LHS with the gold suit and blue rings will extricate them from the poo when unforeseen circumstances dump them in said poo; and further they expect same said gold ringed chappie to avoid putting them in the poo in the first place, should and ideal perfect day not arise.
All the hi-tech wonders of the modern aviation environment and the most comprehensive SOP's will only get you so far. Often the rest is up to your good self and what nouse you may have; if any.

However, I do, reluctantly and with heavy heart, have to accede to you final point:

The damage is already irreversible.

On here this topic will return ad infinitum and reman ever circular disappearing up its own APU. Only after more smoking holes will anyone pay heed.
RAT 5 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.