Thank you Polax52.

I am not sure what point the "BY" accident at Girona demonstrates? In that accident (I was flying about 200 miles West of GRO that night and remember the proliferation of thunderstorms over the Pyrenees,) the Commander who was PF at the time of the landing accident had 16,700 hours of which nearly 3600 hours were on type. The F/O had 1500 hours of which 1145 hours were on type. As I recall the accident report addressed a lack of Go around training from below decision height, but nothing relating to the training or experience levels of the F/O that was contributory to the accident? With nearly 1200 hours on type the F/O would be approaching something akin to two years worth of experience, and if he was a cadet at that time, would likely have been on the cusp of no longer being so, as his ATPL would have been close to becoming "unfrozen." However again, nothing in the accident report suggested a correlation between his experience levels and the contributory causes to that accident.

I would be extremely surprised if the IR failure rate was 9 out of every 10 candidates. However if I accept the premise, it would be worth remembering that 25 years ago most of the applicants for that rating would have been "non approved" (todays modular) CPL holders or PPL holders who would, (in those days even more than now,) have made up the vast bulk of applicants. Today the pass rate may be much higher but I doubt the criteria is "does Mummy have the money" any more than it was then.

I think that we all like to think that, but sometimes experience can be a prop that is used to substitute for awareness. It is therefore something to be wary of. I remind myself every time I walk from the car park into the crew room that almost every accident that ever happened started with a crew doing just this, and thinking they were experienced, safe, and ready for anything. So many, many, accidents since the start of the jet age and certainly before, occurred to crews with impressively high levels of experience and often in both seats. Sometimes of course that was a part of the problem.

I have been involved with our own cadet programme since it started over 15 years ago. Like many captains, I was very sceptical and wary at the start, of just how this was going to be incepted and how it was going to evolve. It started at about the same time that CRM was becoming a requirement (and growth industry) in the UK, although the USA had brought in these programmes some years previously. The thing that stood out for me with these new cadets, was just how ingrained these CRM concepts were in their ab-initio training. The ability to question, the flattening of authority gradients, and the awareness of their own limits, was something that particularly stood out. These cadets were fast learners, and in many ways their understanding of the non-technical aspects of the occupation was something that caused"experienced" pilots (such as myself) a reversal of the learning roles. Fifteen (plus) years later, I can say that of all the concerns I have on a day to day to day basis, flying with cadets is a very long way down the list, and for good reason.

As for experience... well, those cadets of 15 years ago are now todays 11,000 hour captains, training captains, and management pilots. What they learned at the start and through the intervening 15 years, continues to provide todays high levels of safety. Provided they continue to maintain high degrees of awareness, self progression and critique, so they pass that on to the generations of pilots that follow up through the ranks. I think there is a certain arrogance and complacency in saying "I am a safe pilot," but if that were true, I am quite certain that todays well trained and mentored pilots are likely to be better.

I don't, believe that I mentioned anything about being a safe Pilot. I take the view that both you and I are safer Pilots with the experience we have. I would hope that we are aware that complacency could be an issue and we try to avoid it. I would imagine that your cadets from 15 years ago are safer now and have improved skills and judgment than they did when you first flew with them.

That simply is my point, if you aim to hire the most experienced Pilots you can then you will be hiring people who have reached a higher point of personal development and that generally will be safer.

I know that does not fit the concept which the British fto's would like but it is the safer way.Twenty years ago when the main form of training was "self improver", the current type of FTO would have been the better option. Now that most people have been through structured training to obtain a license it makes no sense to ignore experience or personal development.

Experience

What do you call the guy who graduates bottom of his class at Medical School?


"Doctor!"
:8

Polax52, it is an interesting debate because I agree with you to some extent and disagree to some extent. It depends where we are setting the volume control.

Although the previous reply was focused on cadets and low experience pilots, we (as a company) recruit a balanced portfolio of pilots from three sources. The cadets (low experience) come from full time integrated courses provided by one of the major FTO's. The other two sources are "experienced pilots." These are usually pilots with at least a few thousand hours of relevant airline experience. This group divides into two sub-groups. Experienced type rated pilots and experienced non-type rated pilots. Alongside the latter, the third group (also usually non-type rated) are the Military career changers.

It would be extremely rare to find "problem" pilots within any of these groups. All sources are well trained and the transition is invariably an easy one. Modern notech and CRM training tends to eliminate what used to be the occasional and very rare difficulty with the switch from a military background to a civilian training environment. Experienced pilots from other airlines are usually seeking personal career advancement or employment following redundancy for whatever reason. In any event the training background from the usual and preferred sources is (of course) invariably similar to our own.

However, experience does not automatically equate to safety as I am sure you would agree, and given that my next flight will be with a pilot from any of these backgrounds, I have no concerns on any score.

Turning that clock back 20 years you didn't find "self improvers" with 250 hours turning up on a Monday morning. Why? Simply because there weren't any. In those days the minimum (non-approved) hour requirement for a CPL (in the UK) was 700 hours. Even then, this was not a benchmark qualification for most airlines. Most "self improvers" reached this plateau and then used it to spring their way through G.A, air taxi, third and second tier airlines, to eventually get themselves the 2000-3000 hours that was often the first interview ticket for the Jet operators. Despite this experience, it has to be said that where "problems" did arise it was nearly always through this group. Given the often fractious and variable backgrounds that was perhaps not particularly surprising. Having said that, those "problem" cases probably averaged around 20% of which maybe 5% were beyond cost or time effective redemption.

Then of course there are a number of very proficient F/O's who do not make the grade deemed "command standard." Of course these become very experienced pilots, and very experienced F/O's. However does that "personal development" make them safer? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no! There can be occasions when it becomes problematic, and certainly it is something that you would want to try and avoid importing.

The group (and it is a very big group) who are left out of all of this, are the new 250 hour CPL holders, who thought the two thirds reduction in basic hours requirement, was their ticket to the stars. However improved the modular syllabus, it is often still a fractious, un-mentored and highly variable background. The CPL is now basically an "aerial work" licence in much the same way as it always has been in the USA and most other countries. It is the basic requirement to be a flying instructor, (previously a PPL would satisfy that requirement in the UK,) and embark on the stepping stone jobs. The reduction from 700 hours to 250 hours simply opened the floodgates to thousands and thousands of wannabes whilst at the same time many of the traditional "stepping stone" jobs started to disappear. For an airlines cadet programme they want what they perceive as the best, not least because they are not paying the cost of that initial training. Even if they were, they view these courses as surety for the standard of cadet that they want. They can monitor (and mentor in some cases) the entire basic training regime in a way no other system provides.

I can only speak for ezy but in the last year or so there has been an improvement. Once selected there is a clearly defined path through cadetship to first officer to senior first officer to captain. Pay rises as the pilot progresses. Once a permanent contract is awarded a host of benefits become available including a wide range of bases. Command opportunities are still good compared to many companies and you are employed by one of the most secure airlines in the world.
For cadets we are a good bet, I feel we have yet to properly open ourselves up to ex military, TP and flying instructor candidates. I believe there will be more picked up in the next batch of recruitment.
Things have changed in the last 5 years with much of the training/cost risk transferred to the individual. But the flip side; I left a secure job with good T&Cs 15+ years ago and against the advise of many friends and family joined a fledgling upstart of a company which kidded itself it could take on the established European flag carriers. Few people gave easyJet much hope and derided those who took the gamble. There is rarely a guarantee in life. My risk was throwing a good career away to join easyJet; today's gamble is to invest in yourself to earn an opportunity.
It is all too easy to become negative about the pilot market nowadays but the truth is that there are many times more jobs now than 5,10,15+ years ago so what are you going to do to make it happen?

Yes 50% of doctors end up in the bottom of the class.

Anyway, what's best, integrated or modular?

The pros and cons of Low experience. The 2 camps. Those talking of smoking holes (I wince when I hear that it's a bit daily mail). Those liberally talking up how wonderful cadets are, trainable alert pups. How the experienced guys can be bad old dogs too, with unchangeable spots. Its all a bit blurry and hard to generalise. Call me old fashioned but exceptions aside on the whole the more experienced guys have been there/seen it more. It's why TREs aren't cadets, you can't emulsion over that stuff. As a young guy when I got to that stage where you feel a bit sure having got your eye into the job, you know all the books, have read about lots of stuff and consider yourself a sharp young dog and a bit up to speed only to find myself in a situation where I learned off the experienced guy and got bumped back to ground, realising you can't fast track that stuff.

What you don't hear about is how experience helped in such and such a situation and the low hour guy learned that day or came away a little less sure of his hithertoo bulletproof self assured abilities. Or conversely how the long in the tooth guy thought he knew it all then had some new SOP pointed out to him by a new fella. We've all been there it works both ways.

I don't think it's really it to be honest. I think all the talk of smoking holes is just people venting their annoyance. It's easier to talk of smoking holes- shouldnt the authorities step in bla bla, than basically admit what really is getting right up a lot of people's nostrils. With thousands of hours and flying on the wrong type you can't join bla airline yet such and such with a large funding stream, through CTC can see himself through to the front row seats at BA for example but said BA will not take on the direct guy. The game has changed, years ago you did your time on smaller stuff and took your Blinking turn like we all did. When BA took cadets they still took DEP, same with other airlines.

I try to be impartial, it is what it is and you've got to deal with it. I sure wish I had 80 odd grand and no experience if it meant I stood a chance of joining the worlds favourite at the minute :O. Maybe I should burn my licence and logbooks ;)? Actually if I had 80 odd grand I'd spend it on my kids future but I'm an old git

In this industry, nothing replaces experience. Experience is gained through hundreds, if not thousands of hours, of flying different aircraft of various complexity through adverse conditions and various abnormal conditions before progressing to the ranks of "airline cadet." In my book, an airline cadet is a multi-thousand hour pilot with years of experience flying as flight instructor, night cargo, air ambulance, etc in all sorts of aircraft. Then, and only then, should they be deemed ready to fly hundreds of passengers. I'm sorry but a 250hr "cadet" has no place whatsoever within the ranks of an airline training department. Those of you who believe it's a good system have simply fallen prey to airline managements' desperate solution to a shortage of QUALIFIED pilots, and the only reason those folks have now made it to 11,000hr training CAs is because they had the good fortune to not experience a life threatening event that required experience they did not have. However, if you want examples of that, look no further than Colgan 3407 and Pinnacle 3701, to name a couple. In both of those cases, had the CA/FOs had the proper seasoning and experience, those crashes would not have happened. I'm not saying accidents don't happen to seasoned experienced airline pilots, but the chances are greatly reduced.

The USA got it right, at least the first stages of it, by requiring 1500hrs and an ATP before flying 121. That's a start. Europe and the rest of the world would be wise to follow...unfortunately it's just a matter of time before something tragic happens to create enough awareness. I'll say it again, low experience has no place in an airline cockpit, folks...and ab-initio programs are by no means a replacement for this.

You want a good ab-initio program? Grab a 3000hr experienced pilot with tons of night/icing/flight instruction/etc, and THEN "sponsor" him/her into an airline. Now you will have a seasoned aviator no stranger to experience who will be slowly immersed into the airline world. The dividends of that are huge. But a 250hr graduate in an A320 or 737 whose CA becomes incapacitated...or worse, flying with a CA that puts them in an unfortunate situation and they don't have the experience nor fortitude to assert themselves to refuse? That is a recipe for disaster. It's just a matter of time, and we've already seen it in the USA.

This is just my humble opinion, but then again I'm a traditionalist and somewhat "old school"... and I believe the past tragedies confirm what I'm talking about.

Good point aa73. Am 100% with you too.

some mentionned AF447, yes...did you know the pilots were ex-cadets ? they never flown anything then a game boy plane since their school. They did not even recognise a stall...:oh:
anyway.
Europe has always been late (like many other countries) compared to USA.
I do believe if USA changed their rules, there is a valid point about that.
So, one day, Europe will change their rule to follow USA, as we always have done. It is just a matter of time.
europe "invented "the JAA world, very close to FAA, just one letter changed actually.
You will see, we will adopt same rules. ;)

I couldn't agree more with Green lights and aa73.

Unfortunately this cadet thing is far too engrained particularly in the British aviation culture. Currently it is all about business sense rather than common sense. I doubt anything will change.

Bealzebub makes good arguments in favour of the system but that is because he is part of the system and therefore objectivity is difficult.

My view on how Pilots should be hired is:

- Experience
- verify quality

With cadets you have no experience and verification of quality is difficult.

I don't think objectivity is difficult at all. Objectivity is defined as a state or situation where something is based on facts and evidence and the ability to make decisions based on those facts and evidence rather than (your) own feelings or beliefs. I have presented only that evidence that I have factually observed by virtue of my own experience going back at least a decade and a half. I have tried to avoid any feelings or beliefs and rely on what I would consider fact and evidence. That contention is supported by your own statement that the presentation amounts to "good arguments."

If I were going to move away from facts and evidence, I might opine that an Airline Transport Pilots Licence should be the baseline qualification for an Airline transport pilot. Given that this qualification (in the UK, USA, and most other countries) has always had a 1500 hour minimum tariff, that might be regarded as reasonable. The trouble is that it is simply meaningless to the argument. In both of the cited accidents (AF447 & CO3407) not a single one of the crewmembers had less than 1500 hours. 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.

I suppose you could whack up the requirements in the UK to a full ATPL and 1500 hours as a statutory minimum. That would add £70,000 to the ab-initio training bill as you send them off to flog up and down the Florida coastline filling up a logbook. Would that experience make those "cadets" even safer pilots? You might think so, I have doubts that the experience gained would be relevant in most cases. Of course one resultant effect would be to eliminate a huge swathe of hopefuls who would now simply be priced out of the game. £50K plus £70K as against £80K plus £70K.

Experience didn't prevent either of these two exemplar accidents, nor has it prevented hundreds and hundreds of others over the previous eleven decades. On the other hand quality of training /examination and far more relevant training may well have done so. This is what we aim for with our cadet programmes and I am not sure we need to look West for leadership on that score. This is a training regime that has a 50 year pedigree in the UK.

Experience is one of those words rather like discrimination. It comes in good and bad forms but is often mis-used to support a weak argument. Some of the examples given here simply don't provide evidence for the conjecture.

The North American perspective on this cannot really be applied to Europe. If we start to say "one needs 1500hrs" to sit in the RHS of an airliner then where is the candidate supposed to get that experience? They can't all be 200 hour instructors...:ugh::ugh:

As for GA, air taxi etc, don't make us laugh...anything involving MEPs or single pilot is considered much more demanding than going straight out of integrated flight school to an A320. Apart from the fact that other than bizjets commercial GA is almost non-existent now in western Europe.

All you guys talking about "smoking holes" are going to be waiting a long time I think...especially if we are talking about the likes of Ryanair/easyJet. I don't see too many of their planes off runways or at the wrong airport...unlike their equivalents in the US supposedly flown by "experienced" crews.

Surprised someone hasn't blamed AF447 on the MPL yet...:rolleyes:

Contact tower ,

Where do they get that experience? Simple. They get all their ratings up to and including CFI. Then they spend the next year or two flight instructing. Flight instructing is one of the absolute best ways to build PIC confidence when one has low hours. Having to let and watch a student put a plane in a precarious position and learn the skills of when to take over is a priceless commodity that will come in handy much later on, when one is an FO or CA that needs to learn when to step in and when not. It also builds a lot of confidence in the early stages of one's career.

Then - after a year or two of that, one should progress to a more demanding level such as check hauling, night freight, air taxi, ambulance, etc. At that point, our pilot will have much more experience and confidence to be able to handle the more demanding aspects of single pilot 135 ops.

What I'm getting at here is simply that an airline pilot job should be the PINNNACLE of one's career, instead of a starting point, achievable after many years and thousands of hours gaining experience on the building blocks. Think of an airline pilot position as the very top of a pyramid whose foundation is built with the experience I mentioned above. Then, and only then, will your "novice airline pilot" be in a position to act safely as a Crewmember, the safety that all passengers demand. A 250 hour pilot freshly released to the line after an ab initio program is a novice in every sense of the word, and does not belong in that cockpit... I don't care how stringent the program is. There is no substitute for years of experience complete with a few of those "crap, I'm gonna die" experiences we've all had in our careers.

To suggest that a 135 job is a lot more demanding than an airline job may be true in the technical sense, but the airline pilot position carries a LOT more responsibility. However, a 135 job cannot be taken lightly either, and the pilot needs quite a bit of experience to move into one of these jobs as well.

You brought up AF447. Great example... Here we have two graduates of a cadet-type school who had probably never been taught to hand fly a sophisticated airliner at altitude, who did not know how to properly operate the radar in a very TS-prone part of the world. Yet, they promptly put the aircraft in a stall and didn't know how to recover. And yet again, they were "properly qualified", having graduated from ab-initio courses that are so highly lauded. Now, I know that the Airbus-style cockpit and controls may have contributed to this, but again, there is no substitute for experience. I'd much rather have had two FOs up there who had "paid their dues " in the industry flying thousand of hours in all kinds of aircraft/weather, prior to being hired by Air France. And I'll say the same for Ryanair and all the others.

No, I'm not breathlessly waiting for an incident or accident to prove my point; I sincerely hope it never happens again. But I don't need to, because it's already happened, and will happen again. The point here is that we can take steps to proactively PREVENT it from happening again, and that is to require our novice airline pilots to have the required experience first.

The MPL is simply one step further down than the ab initio programs, and represents yet another step in the degradation of our careers. I have SERIOUS issues with this program. It is a recipe for disaster.

Guys, get out there and pay your dues. Get that experience that will more than pay itself off some day in an airline cockpit. Rushing into an airline cockpit is akin to rushing to an accident scene. There is no room for inexperience here. As an example, I had 1500TT when hired into the right seat of a regional airliner, the Jetstream 4100. I had put in several years of flight instruction, charter, air ambulance. And even THEN, it was tough flying and adjusting! Going to the right seat of a multi engine turboprop required EVERYTHING I had experienced and then some. Many times in the beginning I felt overwhelmed. I can't even BEGIN to think how a 250hr pilot would have handled it. Even today, with 11,000hrs, i am still using the basics I learned when teaching a student to land a C152 in a crosswind, in my 737 today. I ESPECIALLY use my weather experience as an air ambulance pilot, in my 737 today. All of that experience translates into the safest flight I can give my passengers today, and I know they're grateful for it. And yet, up until last year we were putting 250hr pilots at Eagle, Colgan, etc. We've seen the results of that haven't we?

I'll conclude with this: I believe that in the pilot profession in Europe and other parts of the world, the "new norm" is to pay your way to the cockpit. Thanks to supply and demand, in conjunction with airlines desperate to cut costs, the airlines can take full advantage and the result is what we have. Believe me, it is absolutely detrimental to the pilot profession and represents a big part of the spiral downward.

Well John again the above is my opinion and nothing more, however, that opinion has been influenced by crashes directly attributed to pilot inexperience. Yes, it's true that today's airlines in Europe have a great safety record, however, it's important to note that many incidents and accidents that HAVE happened to them can also be attributed to pilot inexperience.

Also, I'm absolutely NOT complaining that others had it easier than me: I think it's a dang shame they, too, never paid their dues and lack that part of experience.

Regarding your comment towards passengers not caring about experience...well, I beg to differ, at least in the US. Regardless of their attitudes, though, we owe it to the pax to be always striving to place experienced pilots in cockpits, not 250hr neophytes.

And despite one of the AF447 FOs being a glider/GA pilot, ok so what? What was his prior experience before AF? He still didn't recognize/recover from a stall? Pretty sure he was a cadet too.

I've flown with loads of low hour cadets and have to say that they have all done a great job and none have been out of their depth. However, these have all been carefully selected and had their training monitored from day one. The military has low hour guys fly big jets and why do they not have accidents?

The real problem comes when you hire the lowest common denominator. I'm talking about about taking on pilots because they will pay for training, work for peanuts on a contract;. These are mostly low hour pilots with naive expectations and unshakable optimism. Such pilots appeal to the bean counters that run airlines.

Both the the Colgan and Pinnacle crashes both featured pilots that were graduates of the Gulfstream pay to fly programme. They paid their way into the airlines and had a history of problems. In the UK we had the seemingly forgotten MyTravel accident.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...JZ%2012-08.pdf

This airline was, via an agency charging 35k to low hour pilots for a type rating and line training. One of their customers had failed a sim assesment on the 737 so they decided to put him on the A320. After struggling in the sim (landings) and taking two attempts at the base check (landings) , they let him loose with passengers on line training and......he smashed the aircraft so hard into the deck it was investigated by the AAIB and caused serious damage. Turned out from day one in a Cessna he struggled.

As management hammer away at the terms and conditions this is the kind of pilot that the industry will attract. I suspect that the UK will have its own Pinnacle/Colgan style crash and only then will the regulators act and things start to get better.

Fair weather flier, that's exactly the type of pilot I'm talking about, and IMHO it's just a matter of time before the bar is lowered enough to the point where all new entrants are of the type you mention.

I understand that Lufthansa, British, etc adhere to a very strict process in recruiting candidates, and that's a good thing. I still maintain however that jetliner duty should only come after a long seasoning.

John Smith.... A couple of classic examples for you to look at would be Korean Air 2033, where the inexperienced FO fought the CA on landing to go around, resulting in an overrun. Another one would be China Air 676, where the inexperienced FO triggered the Toga levers and then didn't know how to get out of it. Granted, two Asian airlines but again the result of low hour, inexperienced FOs who were likewise "carefully chosen" and graduated from these pilot cadet schemes...and could just as easily happen anywhere.

In the end? I still maintain that the airline piloting profession keeps getting driven down to the lowest common denominator by lowering standards for new hires, up to and including cadet pilot schemes. While these are not as bad as the pay to fly schemes, they are not really that far off. Want to fly for an airline? Go get the experience, it can literally save your life in the long run.

I think when we look at the great safety records of these airlines, we are lulled into a false sense of security, being that "there hasn't been enough of these types of accidents, therefore the process must be safe." All it takes is one and that's too many. We've already had two serious ones here in the USA that could have been prevented by more experience... AF447 may not have been directly caused by inexperience but it sure was a big player. To me that's more than enough of a good example.

AA331 Boeing 737. Capt. 22 years experience including 2700 hours on type. First officer 10 years experience and 5000 hours on type.

AA587 A300. Capt. 8050 hours including 1723 on type. First officer 4400 hours including 1835 on type.

AA1420 MD82. Capt. 10234 hours including 5518 hours on type. First officer 4292 hours including 182 hours on type.

AA965 Boeing 757. Capt.13000 hours including 2260 hours on type. First officer 5800 hours including 2286 on type.

AA1572 MD83. Capt. 8000 hours including 4230 on type. First officer 5100 hours including 2281 on type.

In just 5 major accidents involving perfectly serviceable airplanes since 1995, resulting in 435 fatalities and a further 110 injuries, you have "experienced" and often very experienced crews at the control. Then there is AA1340, AA102, AA70, AA625, AA385, if you want to go back to 1965 and exclude all the accidents attributed to any form of technical or maintenance error or of course an act of terrorism. Not a cadet in sight and more "experience" than you could shake a stick at.

I wonder what you think aa73?

What I think is what I stated above: accidents can and will happen to anyone regardless of experience...such is the nature of our job. But statistically and realistically, experience makes the difference between a non event and an accident. Compare US 1449 with Colgan 3407 just one month later, two accidents with entirely different outcomes thanks to the level of experience.

American had a bad streak in the 90s. USAir did as well. Delta had its share in the 80s. All 3 of these airlines had very experienced pilots at the controls. That is not my point, there is always that possibility that exists; my point is that we can greatly increase safety at the STARTING point of an airline career by hiring experienced pilots instead of neophytes who haven't experienced the real world of flying yet....and the airline world is not the place for that, no matter how good a cadet or an airline program are.

AF447?
China Air 676?
Korean Air 2033?
Colgan 3407?
Pinnacle 3701?
All of these were caused by, or indirectly caused by, weak airmanship by inexperienced pilots. The argument can be made that these maybe wouldn't have happened with more experienced pilots at the controls.

Anyone can nitpick any airline's accident record and pick an argument, but I'm not debating that issue: I'm simply trying to correlate experience with safety. I think that is pretty indisputable. Instead of looking for an easy way into the cockpit based on how much daddy will be paying, get out there and get the experience. I don't see what's wrong with that. Maybe I'm just naive or misinformed by how it's done overseas, but here in the USA we believe that pilots who get tons of experience before taking the controls of a jetliner are the safest bet.