Why do we not require 1500 hours for a RHS job ?
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 wouldn’t exist...
I’m 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 I’m sure 1500 hours of towing ‘Happy 50th Margaret’ banners gets you very familiar with VFR ops in a 172, please don’t try and say it makes you a much better multi crew airline pilot. Better at weather avoidance, maybe. Better at R/T, arguably, let’s be honest that’s about it.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m 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 I’m sure 1500 hours of towing ‘Happy 50th Margaret’ banners gets you very familiar with VFR ops in a 172, please don’t try and say it makes you a much better multi crew airline pilot. Better at weather avoidance, maybe. Better at R/T, arguably, let’s be honest that’s about it.
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Amantido
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I'm on the pro-200 hour pilot side, too. I am one of them.
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Amantido
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Amantido
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Been around the block
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stop taxing and regulating yourselves out of GA. Flight instructing is a fantastic way of achieving experience. You’re 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. It’s too bad that Europe ruined GA, but it’s your bed, you lay in it. I’ve flown with 755 hour P2F cadets. They didn’t pay their dues through instructing, they didn’t interview for their “job” and they have a sense of accomplishment for accomplishing nothing that was earned. Obviously, this stereotype doesn’t 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 “job” and how much better it was. If it was so good there, why didn’t they hire you or why didn’t you start after your paid “internship”?
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."
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Rosterabuseland
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the original question?
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...
- 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 **** scared to lose their position/jobs, therefore agree to everything the airlines demand.
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...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the original question?
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...
- 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 **** scared to lose their position/jobs, therefore agree to everything the airlines demand.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Earth
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Prague
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Earth
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was the guy who planted the 757 into Newark 2 days back low houred?
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Amantido
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Earth
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree.
Was the guy who planted the 757 into Newark 2 days back low houred?
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.