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 16th Jun 2019, 22:48
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: FLSomething
Posts: 35
Originally Posted by Banana Joe View Post
I hate the F/D. Unless I strictly need them (low ceiling, strong crosswind or gusts) or at night with some approach lights inop I fly raw data. And when I leave it on, I still tend to fly through them...
That SOP, seems a bit off-piste?

Seems to be a lot of stigma about people using flight directors, bit of raw data now and again is fun but if flight directors were really that bad they wouldnít exist...

Iím on the pro-200 hour pilot side. To get someone into an airline fresh out of training is when the knowledge is still there and the skills taught are the sharpest. Whilst Iím sure 1500 hours of towing ĎHappy 50th Margaretí banners gets you very familiar with VFR ops in a 172, please donít try and say it makes you a much better multi crew airline pilot. Better at weather avoidance, maybe. Better at R/T, arguably, letís be honest thatís about it.
VariablePitchP is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2019, 23:30
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,083
Iím on the pro-200 hour pilot side. To get someone into an airline fresh out of training is when the knowledge is still there and the skills taught are the sharpest. Whilst Iím sure 1500 hours of towing ĎHappy 50th Margaretí banners gets you very familiar with VFR ops in a 172, please donít try and say it makes you a much better multi crew airline pilot. Better at weather avoidance, maybe. Better at R/T, arguably, letís be honest thatís about it.
My skills were definitely sharpest after about 1500 hrs instructing VFR maneuvers, Instrument Rating and Multi-Engine work. Then I quit instructing, joined an airline and realized the hand-eye coordination, the workload management it was all the same game. You were still a newbie on the line, you had to adjust to new work patterns, "you didn't see it coming" as clearly.. Pure flying, is transferable. Being a system operator, a chimp could do.
172_driver is online now  
Old 16th Jun 2019, 23:32
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Amantido
Posts: 27
I just feel that relying too much on F/D weakens my scanning skills. I try to fly a raw data approach at least a couple of times a week if I can.

I'm on the pro-200 hour pilot side, too. I am one of them.
Banana Joe is online now  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 08:45
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Surrey
Posts: 268
Can’t speak for Boeing (though I assume it’s the same) but on the bus, either you nail the flight directors, or you turn them off. Flying through the flight directors may be ok in roll, but will lead you into all sorts of trouble in pitch with the auto thrust engaged.
Busdriver01 is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 08:59
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Amantido
Posts: 27
Might be the same on 777/787, but on all other Boeing products when you fly manually you turn the A/T off. Or switch Speed off and leave it armed for low speed protection but I've never seen anyone doing it.
Banana Joe is online now  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 09:34
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by Banana Joe View Post
I hate the F/D. Unless I strictly need them (low ceiling, strong crosswind or gusts) or at night with some approach lights inop I fly raw data. And when I leave it on, I still tend to fly through them...
Recommend reading the FCTM on Boeing's opinion about not following flight directors. But the manual is probably written for us mere mortals, not for the Chuck Yeagers of the sky.
FlyingStone is online now  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 10:02
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Amantido
Posts: 27
I read it, I switch it off when I think the situation doesn't require it. I did not say I don't follow it if it's left on, I said I have an initial tendency of flying through the FD because I keep scanning what my LOC and GS are telling me. And on departure and climb out I set a pitch attitude that gives me the performance I desire and eventually the FD centers.

​​​​
Banana Joe is online now  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 10:26
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 803
The 1500 hour rule is a joke. Go back and read the Coglan accident report that led to this new rule. By far the biggest contributor to this accident was the Fatigue the crew were experiencing, the Captain had a questionable training record but lots of hours, the FO had loads of hours. Both were tired, yawning down the approach due to having to deadhead into work, sleep on the Crewroom couch as they couldn’t afford to live in their base city. A far better response to this incident would have been better flight time limitations and a mandated minimum award for airline pilots including needing to be paid enough to live locally. Sure it would put pressure on costs and airfares but we have allowed the workers to suffer in a never ending quest to reduce costs. The easy option out was to put this arbitrary hour limit in place that has no perceivable safety benefit as you still get pilots with a bad training record in the left and right seat with thousands of hours.
Ollie Onion is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 22:12
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Been around the block
Posts: 512
Originally Posted by Globally Challenged View Post
The US has a huge GA industry to facilitate hour building - where do you propose that EU airlines would source crew with 1500 hours?
stop taxing and regulating yourselves out of GA. Flight instructing is a fantastic way of achieving experience. Youíre essentially a Captain early in your career, you actually practice the knowledge that you learned, you learn to work with a variety of personalities in the cockpit, you learn leadership and decision making and time management skills. Itís too bad that Europe ruined GA, but itís your bed, you lay in it. Iíve flown with 755 hour P2F cadets. They didnít pay their dues through instructing, they didnít interview for their ďjobĒ and they have a sense of accomplishment for accomplishing nothing that was earned. Obviously, this stereotype doesnít apply to all folks who went through a P2F program, but it certainly is not the desired path. Additionally, people from this low time background were the quickest to criticize and tell you how it was done at their previous ďjobĒ and how much better it was. If it was so good there, why didnít they hire you or why didnít you start after your paid ďinternshipĒ?
4runner is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 23:15
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,315
Originally Posted by Globally Challenged View Post
...where do you propose that EU airlines would source crew with 1500 hours?
GC,

Good question. flyfan indicated in an earlier post that EU airlines aren't interested in people who just might have 1500 hours but in a non-airline industry sector. Have to say I don't understand the mindset:

"European aviation is different to American aviation. I wouldn't have minded (in fact: would have liked) to start my career on small Bizjet like a Citation, or doing Medevac, FI etc - BUT these hours are logged for nothing over here, as nearly every airline wants time on at least MTOW >10t. So going the bizjet/medevac route, you're basically stuck in this sector (happened to a friend of mine). FI? Well, nice to have, but is nearly useless for getting an airline job for the same reasons."

bafanguy is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 07:02
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Rosterabuseland
Posts: 56
To the original question?
  • Because Joe Public only want to pay $10 for his ticket to fly across Europe.
  • Because aircraft manufacturers build aircraft for the "lowest common denominator" with cockpit and aircraft systems that only need a 200hr pilot to push and pull knobs when the systems work (until they don't).
  • Because airlines cut costs to meet this new demand citing these safe aircraft and easy to manage systems.
  • Because airline training facilities create the MPL to provide the "pushers and pullers".
  • Because airlines apply pressure to Regulatory Authorities to reduce experience levels.
  • Because Regulatory Authorities are either a) in the airlines' pockets or b) too shit scared to lose their position/jobs, therefore agree to everything the airlines demand.
Et Voila......we have a system where cost drives safety as opposed to the other way around and Mr $ Mrs JP get to go on a holiday to Magaloof that they would otherwise would not normally be able to afford.

What astounds me about today's approach to aviation, is that this is still a dangerous business (improvements acknowledged, as are comparisons to crossing the road, juggling with knives etc etc), many people die at a single stroke when the Swiss Cheese model comes into full effect. This is why aviation should be expensive, because safety requires and comes at a significant cost. So why oh why has this fundamental fact been glossed over? Because of costs (greed). The cost of safety has now been practically eliminated to allow a flawed concept to run and this is why, BUXXC152, in my opinion we have 200hr cadets in the RHS in Europe and now most of the cockpits in other parts of the world.

Immense unfair and undue pressure is now placed on Captains, whether they be newbies, experienced or trainers. The recent 737 Max events may well be the catalyst that highlight to the public and the industry the catastrophic consequences of cutting costs in every area of aviation and in doing so, creating a swiss cheese model with more holes than cheese.

Rant over...
petrichor is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 10:55
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 38
Originally Posted by petrichor View Post
To the original question?
  • Because Joe Public only want to pay $10 for his ticket to fly across Europe.
  • Because aircraft manufacturers build aircraft for the "lowest common denominator" with cockpit and aircraft systems that only need a 200hr pilot to push and pull knobs when the systems work (until they don't).
  • Because airlines cut costs to meet this new demand citing these safe aircraft and easy to manage systems.
  • Because airline training facilities create the MPL to provide the "pushers and pullers".
  • Because airlines apply pressure to Regulatory Authorities to reduce experience levels.
  • Because Regulatory Authorities are either a) in the airlines' pockets or b) too shit scared to lose their position/jobs, therefore agree to everything the airlines demand.
Et Voila......we have a system where cost drives safety as opposed to the other way around and Mr $ Mrs JP get to go on a holiday to Magaloof that they would otherwise would not normally be able to afford.

What astounds me about today's approach to aviation, is that this is still a dangerous business (improvements acknowledged, as are comparisons to crossing the road, juggling with knives etc etc), many people die at a single stroke when the Swiss Cheese model comes into full effect. This is why aviation should be expensive, because safety requires and comes at a significant cost. So why oh why has this fundamental fact been glossed over? Because of costs (greed). The cost of safety has now been practically eliminated to allow a flawed concept to run and this is why, BUXXC152, in my opinion we have 200hr cadets in the RHS in Europe and now most of the cockpits in other parts of the world.

Immense unfair and undue pressure is now placed on Captains, whether they be newbies, experienced or trainers. The recent 737 Max events may well be the catalyst that highlight to the public and the industry the catastrophic consequences of cutting costs in every area of aviation and in doing so, creating a swiss cheese model with more holes than cheese.

Rant over...


This needs to be shared with journalists. A very good summary of what's gone wrong since the deregulation of the EU aviation sector.
cumulustratus is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 12:48
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Earth
Posts: 662
Forgive me, but didn't the largest aviation crash in history happen before deregulation with the environment being exactly the utopia that you describe? Caused by a crew with an infinite amount of hours and everything else you list? Of what use were all of those things? And that's only one example of how unjustified all this wishful thinking is
Officer Kite is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 13:59
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Prague
Posts: 42
Originally Posted by Officer Kite View Post
Forgive me, but didn't the largest aviation crash in history happen before deregulation with the environment being exactly the utopia that you describe? Caused by a crew with an infinite amount of hours and everything else you list? Of what use were all of those things? And that's only one example of how unjustified all this wishful thinking is
No, that is not possible. I guess you mean Tenerife. That was clearly because the cap had not enough hours on Cessna in GA. Otherwise he would not need any stupid clearance and easily managed to jump over that Pan Am and manualy flown to AMS as VFR. Because that is how real pros do that.
Rarife is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 15:04
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 38
Originally Posted by Officer Kite View Post
Forgive me, but didn't the largest aviation crash in history happen before deregulation with the environment being exactly the utopia that you describe? Caused by a crew with an infinite amount of hours and everything else you list? Of what use were all of those things? And that's only one example of how unjustified all this wishful thinking is
So you believe that the introduction of healthy crm philosophies in the flight deck is a direct substitute for the things listed above? If you don't, then why bring it up?
cumulustratus is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 19:36
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 455
Just maybe, there is more than one possible cause for an accident, and therefore the poor CRM of Tenerife is a separate issue from the poor hand flying experience of today's beginners?

​​​
Vessbot is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 20:20
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Earth
Posts: 662
Originally Posted by Vessbot View Post
Just maybe, there is more than one possible cause for an accident, and therefore the poor CRM of Tenerife is a separate issue from the poor hand flying experience of today's beginners?

​​​
Poor hand flying experience? You will find some of thousands of hours can have poorer skills than someone of low hours, that's just humans

Was the guy who planted the 757 into Newark 2 days back low houred?
Officer Kite is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 21:35
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Amantido
Posts: 27
He was in IOE or whatever they call it across the bond. It's what we call line training. He was not low houred, but new to the airline. He probably had some experience on regional jets.
Banana Joe is online now  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 23:26
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Earth
Posts: 662
Originally Posted by Banana Joe View Post
He was in IOE or whatever they call it across the bond. It's what we call line training. He was not low houred, but new to the airline. He probably had some experience on regional jets.
Exactly my point
Officer Kite is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2019, 03:57
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 455
Originally Posted by Officer Kite View Post
Poor hand flying experience? You will find some of thousands of hours can have poorer skills than someone of low hours, that's just humans


I agree.
Was the guy who planted the 757 into Newark 2 days back low houred?
Dunno. Maybe he had a lot of time. Maybe all of it, save 30 seconds per leg, was AP on. Who knows?

My point is that Tenerife's CRM issue can coexist with today's hand flying experience issue, so the former does not contradict the latter. (Not staking a claim about the truth of the hand flying issue, just that it's not contradicted by Tenerife and that its truth or falsity can only be established in unrelated ways.)

Like, imagine for example that we're in a world with a recent rash of high profile fuel exhaustion crashes. And someone saying that that can't be an issue because look at Tenerife where they were very well fueled.
Vessbot 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.