You really need to read what is being written.
Would you be "less horrified" if they waited another year and were reassessed with 2300 hours and achieved the same result? You do seem inordinately obsessed with "never mind the quality feel the width"

You started this thread by asking:
If the Asiana accident had been crewed by the most junior captains and the most junior first officers (or indeed anybody else) it is almost certain that the accident wouldn't have occurred. It was almost certainly the prevailing set of circumstances and/or the individual actions of those concerned that resulted in that accident.

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.
Cadets are part of a career structure. That is why they are cadets. Those cadets eventually become regular first officers once they have reached levels of quantity/ time / performance, gates. They are not released onto the line until they meet the performance standards expected of all first officers. They are then mentored, monitored and specifically assessed for a significant portion of their early careers. It is a steep learning curve and the selection and training requirements reflect that. the vast majority of cadets that I have come into contact with over they years have made their careers within the airline. Many of them are now captains and training captains. Those cadets from 15 years ago are now todays 11,000 captains. Is that enough "experience"?

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?

Anything! Unless you simply demand theoretical reinforcement of your opinion, the thread is meaningless.

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?

The evidence I can offer can only be based on that which I have, so yes it must be specific to those companies that I have worked for. However you have also had answers from other people with their own specific evidence and examples from other companies. They are presumably different companies although the examples seem broadly similar and the comment is pretty much the same. Do you have a specific company in mind, or a set of responses that you want to hear?

Oh but it is! So many things we experience in the simulator cannot safely, practically or economically be reproduced outside of that environment, yet they are so critical to the safety and/or regularity of the operation that their simulation must be the means to an end.

As already stated, the simulator is very often the only experience that pilots will likely encounter of specific situations. Simulation (whatever the shortcomings and limitations) often tests people to an extent that performance in that environment is far more demanding than they are ever likely to experience in day to day operations. Over the last Three decades and more, I have seen many people who are perfectly competent and relaxed on the line, who completely fall apart in the simulator. I have never seen the reversal of that situation. Those that are particularly good in the simulator (with all the stresses that are inherent with that environment,) are usually very good on the line, problems or no problems.

Rhetorical, because it doesn't happen. Cadets are junior first officers. The progression is from cadet to a regular first officer, and only when they meet the time and performance criteria, do they then get consideration for promotion. We set that time floor at around 4000 hours, although those first officers who consistently demonstrate a high level of ability may be considered with 500 hours less than that. For a newly recruited first officer with 4000 hours they might be considered straight away, however the seniority queue would generally preclude that. An ab-initio cadet with 200 hours would require around 18-24 months before they lost the cadet status and became regular first officers, and somewhere in the region of 5-6 years in the right hand seat before they could be considered for further promotion. Even so I must again emphasise the point that being at the head of the queue is not sufficient qualification for promotion.
Other companies may well have requirements that differ from these, however broadly I would expect the requirements to be similar for aircraft of a similar size and complexity.

I don't know of any airline that considers cadets for promotion to captains. Perhaps you could offer some evidence of that, if it exists?

So there we find the fundamental disagreement, I do not believe that simulator is a means to an end, I believe it is a very important training tool that goes hand in hand with experience.

Panda, you are closing your eyes and ears to the fundamental point made by several of us, repeatedly, that hours in a log book don't always constitute useful experience. You criticise short haul for being unchallenging, but that's where you get the most take offs and landings for a given number of hours and typically where you use the least well equipped airports and the shortest runways. Frankly, the biggest challenge for long haul is fatigue and boredom. Fly around the EU in the locos and you're landing jest on 5500' runways off NPAs in valleys, and doing a lot of contaminated runway ops in the winter too. It's also extremely congested airspace with a lot of different cultures and languages. Still think that doesn't count? Why do you think many of the legacy airlines are now specifically targeting EZY and RYR for recruitment, rather than charter or other legacy carriers?

Even then, in the rapid-fire LOCOs, experience and hours don't go hand in hand, and ability and hours are almost completely divorced. I see guys with a few years on line who have never had a diversion, and others who have just started their second season and had diversions, technical issues, medical emergencies and so on. Hours and experience are a lottery, and it's arguable as to whether it's luckier to have lots of things happen to you or none; personally, I think those who sail through with never a challenge are the unfortunate ones. But I have to say the sharpest FO I have seen yet was not only doing just his second year, but is also very young, and he was (is) exceptionally aware and capable, more so than several 15000hr captains I know.

Those who push the hours=experience=safety angle are almost exclusively frustrated long haul FOs. That might not be the case here, I don't know, but that's how it comes over.

Or else he might not have come up to FR standards?

Don't be horrified! It's not a good look.

You're again missing the main reason why publishing a league table is a bad idea: context. The 1800hr upgrade was possible and a few did it in that time. It was/is an airline that has a huge mix of experience, be it cadet, ex-mil, ex-legacy or returning expats. Captains with between 2000 - 15000+ hours. Most upgraded with more time than the minimum. The average sector length was around an hour, so you could have had 1600 odd sectors under your belt when it came for command assessment. And all achieved in around 3 years. In my current gig, I'll find it a stretch to do much more than 300 sectors in 3 years, but the average sector is considerably longer than an hour!

I take on board your example, but it's a weak one. You were working hard, the skipper wasn't, he had more capacity at that moment most likely. Probably wondering why you were still in the clag at 1400' on a CAVOK day! You'll always go somewhere for the first time, be it 200hrs or 10000hrs

A league table as you describe, despite being pointless, would never be subscribed to by any airline. If you're concerned by particular operators, name them and explain why. Then we might be able to understand your position better.

JW, I'm not sure if your post is referring to my preceding one. Just in case it is, I don't want to get into a debate over standards in individual companies, because that too can be misleading - there are good and bad everywhere, and the reasons for the bad vary; they could be bad because of a lack of aptitude, holes in their training or because they are too scared of management to do what is right and instead just do what they're told. And while I don't think EZY or RYR pilots as a whole are bad, I don't think they can be singled out as the epitome of flying either - some are very good indeed, and other not so much. Just like everywhere else, they have to be judged individually, not collectively. Just because a pilot might fly for a company with a bad name, it doesn't follow that the pilot must be bad too.

JW411- Are you suggesting that FR standards are low?

AS- I don't want to re-iterate what I have already posted. I clearly have respect for the shorthaul experience that guys of Easyjet or Ryanair have. I agree with a lot of what you say. I question whether you think the sharp 20 year old in his second year of operation should be Captain and the less sharp 15000 hour guy should be his F/O. Then maybe we could make that sharp 20 year old an F/O when he is a less sharp 15,000 hour guy. We could kind of go into a reverse career path.

Panda, I'm not entirely comfortable with 3000hrs being sufficient for a jet command, but then again, it's a minimum and not a qualifier. I agree that the industry needs to ensure commanders are suitably experienced, and frankly I don't think many FOs get enough experience in 3k unless they're in the habit of shooting albatross. The average guy may see one or two weather diversions and a single tech issue, but that's probably about it. Some of the more fortunate ones will see more, but some of the guys I know who are due for command soon in these outfits and have passed their screening have never diverted. I can't help feeling that was a factor in the mess that was the MAD-VLC mass diversion. But, I still think that hours per se are a misleading indicator for experience, especially amongst long haul pilots who spend most of their flight time dong relatively little but checking the nav and fuel consumption. As long as pilots are selected on aptitude and given suitable training, then experience will continue to play only a smaller role in safety.

I feel this thread has become Kafkaesque, if indeed it wasn't to begin with.

You would probably not be sitting there fat dumb and happy if you were a 3000 hour captain faced with this situation. You cannot compare your 3000 hour self to other low hour captains. Merely switching seats changes your outlook on the situation...

Anyway. Many legacy airlines have very young and 'unexperienced' pilots, left AND right seat, on their short haul fleet. This is nothing new. They hire cadets who become short haul captains at the first opportunity. Been like this for ages..

What I see very clearly on the line is that a proper selection before a cadet starts flight training says ten times more than experience. I'm not discounting experience, but it is but one of many factors.

Jet, Turboprop, Piston Single, Glider - It doesn't matter. What counts is the selection, training and thinking of the crews.

Was due to the weather. More fuel would have enabled them hold for longer, with no guarantee of a better outcome. And although I can not stand RYR, I do rate their pilots. They are some of the best in the industry. Also, whenever there are mass diversions I've learned that a yellow streak is a good thing to have. Beat the rush, nick the best parking spots, get fueled, get the buses etc.

Having thought about this, I suspect there is probably a 'Normal distribution', ("bell curve") of pilot's ability against their age.

By ability, I mean a combination of experience and competance.

Experience implies age but it is not a direct connection. Experience cannot be measured by total hours alone (because for example widebody jet cruise pilots hours are not comparable to "Low Cost" turboprop hours). Take offs and landings and types flown perhaps need to be taken into consideration too.

So young pilots with very little experience generally have less 'ability' than the norm, but much older pilots who have a lot of experience but who may be slowing down in their thought processes also might have reducing ability - hence possibly why some accidents happen to very experienced pilots?

However, age is not a reliable indicator either, because one 50 year old pilot might have been flying since they were 17, another might be a career changer in only their 5th year of flying.

I also think that this preoccupation by newspapers of a pilots' hours probably comes from the same reason that makes reporters want to quote people's ages. It's not usually all that relevant, but it gives them something to write?

I don't see any reason why such information (average pilot experience) can't be published based on a sample data. Other than worrying about the airline filing a lawsuit which shouldn't be a problem if you publish factual information and issue a disclaimer about the statistical probability for error.

The information should be published based on carrier name, not operator. Many large airlines outsource their flying to low cost operators who carry the name of the larger airline...such as the regional airlines in the USA.

The problem with the regional airlines in the USA is that they split their pilot pool across several code share partnerships so one day a pilot could be flying under the Delta Airlines name and the next day under USAirways or something like that. A solution could be to use averages based on number of flights used in each code share compared with experience average for that operator.

Then you have to place the data in a context that the public could understand and care about. For example...if airline A with 2000 pilots has an average experience level of 5000 hours and airline B with 3000 pilots has an average of 5500 hours....does that really matter to anyone?

I think whats more important is the general spread of the curve, not the average. For example, airline A has pilots that range from 250 hours up to 13,000 hours while airline B's lowest experienced pilot is 3000 hours.

So what do you do with a legacy airline that has it's junior crew flying the little Fokkers and Embraers whilst the more experienced crew progress to the heavier metal? If you use the average experience, you would think that the crew flying your little Embraer is vastly experienced, whereas the may not even have 3000 hours combined!


Shows you that this idea will not work in any way or form.

See there are no airlines like that in the USA. Other than JetBlue and USAirways operating E190s I can't think of any operator in the USA that operates RJs alongside Boeings or Airbus. Does anyone still fly Fokkers?

Maybe the OP had European airlines in mind? Except I thought he was an American working in China. In China they don't really move pilots from smaller planes to larger planes...they all pretty much stay in whatever they are assigned to.

Pretty much...but...

...if it did become an public issue and airlines really did have to compete for those top rankings...they may be inclined to back off the outsourcing model that's bringing their numbers down. Or, in the case of some other airlines (not in the USA) that bring very low time (and low paid) pilots into the larger equipment...to stop doing that. After all, no one airline will want to be labelled as having the least experienced pilots in their cockpits even if just by a small margin...just like they don't like having the oldest fleet in the country.

Actually I think such a ranking system would be very doable...maybe it's something Consumer Reports should publish a story on.

Looking at the Ryanair threads here it appears Ryanair management will happily recruit less and less qualified guys just to keep the operation going. Is there really any oversight? Because it sure doesn't look like it. Maybe experience levels should be published.

Fast track to A320/B737 then 1000s of hours burning holes in the sky on automation
 

Fast track to A320/B737 then 1000s of hours burning holes in the sky on automation

Both FO and SO on AF447 were Integrated, sponsored cadet route under 250h then straight onto A320 then A330 and 340 automation for 10 years.....

Now we reduce that 250h flying course to the MPL: less solo experience than a PPL/Private pilot, and as low as 70h real flying before SIM and then pax flying.......


USA going the opposite route - better fatigue rules than EASA and 1500h rule plus a min of 10h full motion SIM and 30h g/school before you can take the ATP from August 1st 2014.......


Up to retirement age, old and less bold tend to live longer than young and rash. That's why car insurance is so ridiculously high for youngsters no matter how well they can drive. On the flip side, many (accountants) decry experience these days, but it is in fact possible for the brain to continue to make new connections well in to old age but that means doing the cross word or similar and not just relying on old habits!

Comlux now advertising for "Commander – XRS Global Express (G6000 Vision) - Living in Almaty".....and in the add one can read "Minimum experience (total time) 2’500 hours. Rating on BD700 or G5000".

2,500 hrs total time and being PIC of a 100,000lb aircraft with intercontinental range??!! I don't know about you but most people I have met in my career with 2,500 hrs total time would not be ready for this.

Mr Oligarch Billionaire is more concerned about the cost of a Global rating than his own life apparently. Beats me......