VuelingAirbus
Topic Author
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 4:44 am

Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Sun Aug 28, 2005 4:26 am

I recently read in another threat that some companies give flying jobs to people with 500 hours and the poster raised the question of how safe that is (and on a side note I had the incredible luck to get a job with 285 hrs. and frozen ATPL on MD-83 when I was 22). Since the other threat was about something completely different I would like to hear your opinion on low time pilots.

Most European companies hire people directly from the flight school at the moment and this makes me think about the positive and negative sides of this practice.

Low timers have naturally a lack in handling capabilities when they start their job and they are more hesitant to take corrective actions if needed (captains screws up...). On the other hand they are receptive to critics, willing to learn and very motivated and thankful. They usually have the most recent training and an above average system and general knowledge (not to be mistaken by experience and operational knowledge).

I am very interested in all of your opinions, doubts and feelings towards it.
 
gg190
Posts: 158
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 7:25 am

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Wed Sep 07, 2005 6:14 am

I think they are safe enough, so long as the captain is competant enough. If plane crashed with a low hour first officer on-board, because a captain screwed-up then it is the captain who was unsafe, a low hour F/O I don't think would be a factor, they're not there to correct the captains mistakes.

Also these low-hour pilots have to build-up hours somehow. Flight training is extrememly expensive, and then to have to spend time flying G/A aircraft to 'unfreeze' your ATPL may not be an option for some.
 
barney captain
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Wed Sep 07, 2005 7:14 am

Less than 500 hours TT and in the right seat of transport category aircraft? Absolutely not. Sorry folks, we as professional pilots get saddled with an endless litany of tests, restrictions and scrutiny all in the name of flying safety, only to be paired up with someone who needs constant instruction and supervision? I don't think so.

Quoting Gg190 (Reply 1):
they're not there to correct the captains mistakes

They absolutely are. There is no substitute for experience, and having someone in the right seat without the experience/confidence to point out a potential problem is not conducive to a safe operation.
Southeast Of Disorder
 
MD88Captain
Posts: 1224
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 9:50 am

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Wed Sep 07, 2005 8:21 am

Low time in the right seat means the guy in the left seat has an increased work load. I've done it and it sucks.
 
CX Flyboy
Posts: 6056
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Wed Sep 07, 2005 10:41 am

I think it really depends on the individual. I have seen plenty of higher time pilots whose skills are much worse than ab initio pilots with only a couple of hundred hours. Sometimes these low time pilots have entered straight into the airline having been trained by that airline to their standards. There will have been no bad influences from other sources. The pilot is 100% taught the way the airline wants and they are usually better off from it.

I think that to justify your question you need to sit down and have a look at statistics for crashes, crew error and the number of hours the crew member has. I doubt there is much of a correlation. Many accidents are from crews that have had bad training or a simple lapse in procedures, and this is far more to do with the airline and individual than the number of hours they have flown. I think you will find that most crashes are from pilots with many hours under their belts.

Having said all that, I do agree that a low hour pilot MAY cause a higher workload for the captain if they let their inexperience show, however when talking about crashes, I do not think the situation goes that far.
 
AA717driver
Posts: 1502
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 8:27 am

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:37 am

MD88Captain--Well said!

Dear JAA--Education is no substitute for experience. TC
FL450, M.85
 
amtrosie
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:44 am

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:51 am

Absolutely NO low timers!!!!! From maintenance side of the house (dysfunctional though it may be), to have an inexperienced right seater is a recipe for disaster. They DO NOT have superior systems or general knowledge. Where is this knowledge gained? From hands on finger nails getting dirty EXPERIENCE!! I can not tell you how many times a "newbie" has created far more work and started the path to an accident, where an more experienced pilot or mechanic has had to stop that potential disaster. They must gain their experience on airframes less complicated and step-by-step proceed from there.
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29929
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Thu Sep 08, 2005 2:30 pm

I'd agree with Amtrosie on that one.
Low Time Pilots out here have created confusions.Even on Pushback/startup one can hear the PIC yelling out errors.
Recently there was an Incident when the brakes were applied on Pushback too.

I dont want to Generalise,But its in a Majority.

At Some Airlines the Low timers are allowed to fly SNY or as Observers for xyz hrs to help their confidence on that type,before taking the RH Seat.I'm refering to Commercial Airlines.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
AirWillie6475
Posts: 2372
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:45 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Thu Sep 08, 2005 3:04 pm

I have asked relatively senior pilots this question before because it is an interesting topic. Both have said that they have flown with low time pilots and they believe that most of the low time pilots (flight academy graduates) have no business being in the cockpit. For them the job becomes easier and enjoying if they don't have to baby sit inexperienced pilots. Its true that back in the day major airlines hired pilots with only 1000 hours but they went as F/Es not F/Os directly like they do now.
 
MrChips
Posts: 933
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 2:56 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Thu Sep 08, 2005 3:36 pm

I'm gonna bite my tongue real bad here.

In fact, I am so incensed with these simply ignorant responses, I am going to walk away from this thread before I say something I'm going to regret later.
Time...to un-pimp...ze auto!
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29929
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Thu Sep 08, 2005 3:49 pm

Quoting MrChips (Reply 9):
I am going to walk away from this thread before I say something I'm going to regret later.

Let me guess.You are a Low timer.  Smile
Seriously speaking.... Better than walk away,Maybe you could express your opinion & prove us Wrong.Thats what this forum is for.If you know something Share it.
regds
ML
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
MrChips
Posts: 933
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 2:56 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:09 pm

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 10):
If you know something Share it

Alright...I've cooled off enough now, and I think Mel has raised a good point here...I should see what I can do to change some minds here.

A bit of background first. I am a low-time pilot myself - I currently have a Commercial Lisence with Multi-engine and multi-engine instrument ratings, and I stand at about 920TT, almost all of it command time in light singles.

First off, I must state that to lay down a blanket statement about low-time pilots being next to useless is the wrong thing to do, and I will explain that later. Now, I will be the first to admit that there are low-timers out there who I would never even dare fly with because of their lack of ability and an apperant lack of attention to detail and procedure...in effect, these pilots are behind the airplane right from the walk-around until the time they open the beer at the end of the day. Now having said that, I guarantee that there are airline pilots who fit that bill as well.

Relating to this, if an air operator properly does their job of training new hires and experienced pilots alike, and this air operator has a good set of SOPs to back up this training, then the experience level of the pilot should be almost a non-issue. It does not matter how experienced a pilot is, if he/she is trained improperly, everyone else's job (be it engineers, dispatchers, etc.) becomes much more difficult. Really, you could argue that the reason many of you "old dogs" (and I say this affectionately, not with hostile intent) have had such trouble with low-time pilots is not just that they have poor grasp of the task at hand, but they were never trained to be able to grasp it in the first place.

This brings me to my next point. There is no subsititute for experience...I know that I have learned much in the 670 or so hours I have flown since graduating from college. The problem is that with the way that the industry is currently set up, there is a classic Catch-22 scenario playing out - You need experience to get a job and move up, but a job is the only way to get the experience to move up. Now, unless you're lucky like I was, the only way a 220 or 230 TT commerical pilot will gain experience is to get a flight instructor rating...adding to the already considerable bills accrued from earlier flight training. Unfortunately, there are a good number of operators who will not look at flying instructors for this reason or that, even though they have gained experience in a manner recognized by the regulatory agency.

On the topic of training, another hinderance arises. 20 or 30 years ago, most airlines would scoff at "those flight school flunkies", saying that their training is substandard or completely inadequate, and that the only pilots suited to joining the workforce are those that are current or former military pilots. Now back then, this wasn't a problem - the military trained enough pilots to maintain their numbers and to keep a steady supply of pilots coming out the other end into the airlines/corporate world. Fast forward to today - the military is no longer able to easily throw away the millions of dollars invested in training a pilot after only 10-15 years of service - they want you for life now. Here in Canada, and I'm pretty sure its the same almost everywhere else in the world, the military simply cannot afford to train future airline pilots anymore. Enter the flight schools - they can fulfill the demand for pilots, and many of them are trained to the same level that military pilot would be at wings ceremony. Of course, there are again exceptions to this, but word travels quickly about which schools are good and which are bad.

Finally, we have the "big, bad captain" problem. I have friends already flying in two-crew environments, and they say that a substantial number of captains seem to go out of their way to make the F/O's job difficult. They will make comments like, "you know, we get 500 applications a week for your seat, so replacing you wouldn't be too hard at all". With that, the F/O is literally frightened into a state where he/she is literally dreading every leg with this person, because the captain has put them in a situation that they are afraid to bring to attention things that could pertain to the completion of the flight in a safe and expeditious manner. When asked why they do this, the captains simply reply, "when I was an F/O, my captains did this to me, so it's my duty to do it as well/it didn't hurt me any." Not only do I personally find this intimidation tactic to be reprehensible from a moral aspect, but I feel that it severely compromises the safety of the flight before you even leave the chocks. By intimidating your first officer, you could very well be throwing a very important asset out the window. In fact, one of my close friends, one who follows procedure properly, has a good grasp of systems and has superior airmanship; a first-class aviator in every respect, has recently quit the industry altogether because he was sick and tired of the intimidation that he experienced at not one, but two companies.

On a personal note, I am going to get this out of the way right now - I feel that the proper place for a 250 hour pilot is not at a major airline. You need time to mature and gain experience before handling a large and complicated aircraft like a regional jet. Now having said that, there is no reason under the sun that a 250 hour pilot cannot fly as an F/O in a King Air or on a Navajo.
Time...to un-pimp...ze auto!
 
Ralgha
Posts: 1589
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 1999 6:20 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:53 pm

Pretty good post Mr Chips. Unfortunatly the operator can only train someone so much. In general, low time pilots will not do as well as the higher time ones. Of course there are exceptions, but they are exactly that, exceptions.

Stick a CFI will 1500 hours in singles and light twins in the right seat of an airliners, they're going to be behind the airplane, but they will, in general, catch up faster than a CFI with only 1000 hours would. Someone who's been flying freight in a slightly less light twin would catch up even faster. It's not only how much time, but what kind of time you have.

Many captains have told me that their job is much easier with a competant FO, and, in general, the more experience someone has, the faster they become a competant FO.

Quoting MrChips (Reply 11):
Now having said that, there is no reason under the sun that a 250 hour pilot cannot fly as an F/O in a King Air or on a Navajo.

King Airs and Navajos don't require FOs.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29929
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Thu Sep 08, 2005 7:56 pm

Good Detailed Post MrChips.Thanks for
1.Enlightening us from the Low Timers Point of View.
2.Opting to Discuss.
 bigthumbsup 
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
Sabenaboy
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 5:31 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Thu Sep 08, 2005 8:02 pm

Quoting VuelingAirbus (Thread starter):
I would like to hear your opinion on low time pilots.

Well Vuelingairbus,

I'd rather be flying with a low-time, well trained, intelligent, CRM-able F/O with above avarage (hand-)flying skills, (The kind of pilots that flight academies a la Lufthansa, KLM an Sabena produce), then with a high time, but foolish -accident waiting to happen- Chiefpilot like Eduardo.

(  Wink , I'm sure Vuelingairbus knows who I'm talking about!)

PS: did he experience any "uncommanded go-arounds" lately?  Wink
 
VuelingAirbus
Topic Author
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 4:44 am

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Thu Sep 08, 2005 8:48 pm

First of all. Thanx for all your replies and your opinions.

The difference I can see here is that the people coming from an area with low time pilots tend to like them versus our North Ameerican posters seem to dislike them.

Its just a fact that in JAA countries you can get a F/O job on a transport aircraft like A320/B737/MD80 ... directly after flight school with minimum hours. My previous company (and in 20 years of operation with 20 Acft they had no single accident nor serious incident) even had maximum hours to get the job.

Quoting Sabenaboy (Reply 14):
I'd rather be flying with a low-time, well trained, intelligent, CRM-able F/O with above avarage (hand-)flying skills

Reason for that politic is that we had many serious problems with those experienced guys. If they came from the military they had no clue about Airline operations, it was a one man show and there were no CRM skills present. Coming fom other Airlines they would kinda stick to their old SOP's and were not flexible enough. New guys from small GA operators, flying turboprop or CFI's did actually cause more stress to our TRI/TRE's because it was difficult to eliminate some of the ways they were used to operate the aircraft. On top of that many just wanted to get the rating and they would leave the company after the bond period for greener pastures.

The low time pilots on the other hand proved that they had a much better system knowledge (more motivated since it was their first rating). They followed SOP's correctly. After 3 to 6 month in operation they had good flying capabilities, good and correct standard ATC phraseology and they knew the airline operations. When upgraded to captain the company had less problems with them as well.
 
CarbHeatIn
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 6:31 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Thu Sep 08, 2005 9:54 pm

Don't forget that to obtain a JAA ATPL(Frozen) is significantly more challenging than to secure the FAA equivilant.
 
Woodreau
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2001 6:44 am

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Thu Sep 08, 2005 10:25 pm

I thought the hiring process is different between the US and Europe/Asia. I thought it was the norm to hire right out of the flight academies with low time pilots in Europe and Asia.

So it's kind of like comparing apples and oranges between low time pilots hired in Europe and low time pilots hired in the United States.

I've heard that some countries will send their pilots with zero time to flight academies in the US, get their commercial pilot certificate, then they go back to their home country, and they're flying 737s, 747s, 777s in their own country with 250TT.

Edit: Japan Air Lines (from what I hear) will not hire you if you have any significant pilot time (more than a 100?) before being hired with them, they want you with zero time so that they can train you their way to fly their 747s and 777s.

[Edited 2005-09-08 15:31:33]
Bonus animus sit, ab experientia. Quod salvatum fuerit de malis usu venit judicium.
 
CarbHeatIn
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 6:31 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Thu Sep 08, 2005 10:47 pm

A bit off topic, but there is a strong perception in Europe, especially in the UK and Ireland that the local airlines frown on US training prefering applicants to have trained fully in the JAA system.
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:12 pm

Some interesting responses here.

Quoting VuelingAirbus (Reply 15):
The difference I can see here is that the people coming from an area with low time pilots tend to like them versus our North Ameerican posters seem to dislike them.

Right you are, but I think this is just rooted in our recent experience. Here in the US when a major airline goes into a hiring cycle it has an applicant population that includes low-time commercials, commuter captains and f/o's, fighter and transport pilots leaving active duty, reserve fighter and transport pilots living locally, corporate pilots and guys who were furloughed from, or who flew for another airline now defunct.

The military pilot pool has dried up somewhat, at least it is not like it was during the wind-down from Vietnam. But the pool of folks who flew for other airlines is pretty large. These applicants might bring four thousand hours in your type airplane. Now I ask you, with that kind of experience to draw from, how attractive are this year's graduates from ERAU?

From my point of view, I'd love to have a copilot with experience to rival my own. It fits my command style which is relaxed, casual, cooperative unless time does not permit such. I agree that it is more work babysitting a low timer, but that just may be part of the job.

Now in other countries where the pilot applicant pool is not like this, I can see an academy approach being not the best, but the only solution. In such a case, I think the airline would have a considerable safety burden - bringing these low-timers along until they truly carry their weight in the cockpit. I think that the cockpit now must be seen as an extension of the classroom and perhaps they should designate training captains who would be the only captains permitted to fly with low timers.

This training captain status should probably be based not just on technical merit (we should be able to assume that of all our captains) but on their personalities. They should be trainers, guides, and not tyrants. But lest I sound too warm and fuzzy here, they would also have the duty to weed out those who are just not going to make it.

Quoting MrChips (Reply 11):
I feel that the proper place for a 250 hour pilot is not at a major airline.

Well here in North America I'd like to agree. But putting aside for a moment, the number of potential victims of his inexperience, the low time pilot is probably safer under the guidance of a good captain and in the structure of a flight ops department with clear guidlines for the task at hand than spiraling down to an airport in the bottom of a valley at midnight knowing if he doesn't pick up the boss he is fired.

* * *


For a bit of perspective, 250 hours is about what the B-17 pilots of the 8th Air Force had when they shipped over. It is about what the US Army helicopter pilots had when they arrived in Vietnam. Both these groups had high accident rates but that was as much the product of urgency-of-mission as it was their inexperience.

A few years ago I was looking at the brochure of the Canadian Air Force "Snowbirds" a great airshow team. The pilots had an average flying time of less than two thousand hours. Not even enough to get an interview at most airlines here. But no one can say they aren't great pilots! It is training, discipline and the strucure of our ops departments that makes us good. Personal talent is a lesser part of the equation unless something completely unheard-of happens. Then luck and judgement are about equal.

an opinion from an old gray head
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
tom775257
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 1:51 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:24 pm

IMHO From what I have seen there is a very different approach between Europe and the USA.

In the USA it seems more of an apprentice style approach, with IMHO an easier CPL/IR but then requiring many hours spent building up experience with aircraft with increasing size.

In Europe we train to excess in theory, and the IR is tough. I have flown with fresh FAA IRs and I was not impressed, it could have been the pilots I know, but they had just passed.

I went straight out of training into my MCC on the B752 sims (level D, zero time) at BA Cranebank. This was to learn multi-crew flying, however between myself and my sim partner (both 250 hours) we had no problems flying the aircraft to a satisfactory standard from cold dark cockpit to shut down at the other end. Engine fire/ failure just after V1 MTOM no snags to successful landing, decompression at altitude, non-precision approaches, hand flown single engine approaches in 25kt cross wind etc. (Obviously prior to this we had learnt the SOPS, cockpit layout and the various TO/ Approach/ Landing/ GA profiles etc.)

All I am saying is that the JAA route seems to do a pretty good job at training you to fly commercial transport aircraft, if I can just get in a 757 with maybe a days reading previous and obviously advice while flying along from the instructors, but fly it safely to some very nice landings with faults happening, says something about the course.

My final flight as PF was with no help from the instructors. So this was two 250 hour guys in the cockpit. We were just given the flight plan and load sheet and took it from there. The flight was between Heathrow and Edinburgh. We had a decompression at FL370, so emergency descent, sorting the aircraft out, speaking to ATC, DODAR decision making between the pilots, speaking to the cabin crew, making PA to PAX, NITES brief the Cabin crew, speaking to the company, setting up the FMC for the diversion back to Heathrow etc. Low and behold one of the engines starts to surge, eventually engine fire, memory items then QRH, further DODAR continue to Heathrow single engine, ATIS and start the approach setup, sort performance, flap speeds, bug-up the speeds, approach brief etc. etc. Hand fly down the ILS into Heathrow, nothing seen at DA, single engine G/A then Heathrow closed due to an accident. DODAR and then request radar vectors to Gatwick, meanwhile injured pax so we must re-plan the approach ASAP, speak to senior cabin crew member, delegate PA, sort approach brief, go through all the checklists again meanwhile approaching Gatwick very quickly. Because of the large work load on the PNF I took the radio as well as flying through the approved hand-over. Requested vectors downwind so the moment we are ready, turn in (passengers injured). We sort it all out just as we are about the perfect position to turn base, get it down nicely on the ILS handflown to a good landing.

The BA pilot training us said that he didn't really have much to say that we had done wrong on that flight. So 2x 250 hours guys can sort out things in a complex jet with multiple problems successfully.

Oh yeah, and regarding a 1500 hour pilot being behind the aircraft, I will quote an instructor who put in my sim report 'Always way, way ahead of the aircraft.'

Experience is obviously massively important, I will not argue that, however please remember with correct training a 250 hours pilot can, IMHO, be a useful FO in a transport jet.
 
CarbHeatIn
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 6:31 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 1:01 am

Cheers for that Tom, excellent post. It would be interesting to compare the first time pass figures for the JAA IR and the FAA IR.
 
CX Flyboy
Posts: 6056
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 1:43 am

I think it is easy to jump on the bandwagon and critisise low time pilots as the start of this interesting topic has begun, but it is good to see some different opinions on this topic emerge.

I firmly believe that experience is not the only thing that makes a good pilot. I hope that most would agree here. There are plenty of the old school guys who would never get a job in an airline like the one I work in despite their experience. A good pilot is made by good training and having the right stuff. Age and experience does not equal the right stuff. I know several experienced pilots who have no place on a flightdeck. Of course experience adds a very special element to a pilot, which cannot be trained, but is certainly not the be-all and end all of things.

I was speaking to a couple of very senior training captains and our chief pilot the other week who was saying that an aircraft like the 777 is much easier to fly than a 737 classic which he used to fly, and that there is absolutely no reason that 'new' pilots should have a problem flying with relatively low experience to the high standards demanded by an airline like ours (which incidentally employs some low flight time pilots, AND came 4th in having the world's best and safest operations of any airline - so we must be doing something right).
 
Sabenaboy
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 5:31 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 1:49 am

Tom775257,

I do not know what DODAR stands for.

I suppose that it's a BA acronym that serves as a memory aid during the decision making process. (Just guessing)

Could you elaborate on what DODAR stands for, please?

Regards,
Sabenaboy
 
AirWillie6475
Posts: 2372
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:45 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 2:17 am

Mr.Chips, good response although I'm not sure what your "Big Bad Captain" part had anything to do with your point. Some intimidating words are needed to keep the young F/Os mind focused on the job. They can either have an open mind or quit.
 
MrChips
Posts: 933
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 2:56 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 2:48 am

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 12):
King Airs and Navajos don't require FOs.

Depending on the type of flying you are doing here in Canada, you need an F/O in these aircraft. Furthermore, compared to a single-pilot operation, you will save money in insurance even after paying the F/O, so it makes economic sense as well.

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 24):
Some intimidating words are needed to keep the young F/Os mind focused on the job. They can either have an open mind or quit.

Respectfully, I must say that is total BS. If you need to resort to intimidation as a leadership tactic to "keep people focused", then you need to think long and hard about whether or not you really belong in this industry. The last thing we need are more bullies on the flight deck. Furthermore, if the young F/O is really serious about his job, and almost all of them are, then they won't need any additional motivation in the first place.

Again, I am going to beat the safety drum. By doing this to your F/O, you have just raised his/her stress level to the point at which they are actually going to make mistakes becuase they are spending so much time concentrating on one aspect of flying the airplane that they totally forget about another. Kind of defeats the purpose, it seems. Also, if the F/O gets his ears boxed everytime he brings something to the captain's attention, then what's gonna happen when the F/O sees something critical that the captain hasn't noticed yet? Another ear boxing?
Time...to un-pimp...ze auto!
 
tom775257
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 1:51 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 2:49 am

Hi SabenaBoy:

You are correct, DODAR is used as a decision making tool (by BA and others I think):

DIAGNOSIS: e.g. engine fire

OPTIONS: e.g. Land nearest suitable, might need runway lengths/ Weather etc. Get a number of options.

DECIDE: Discuss between the crew the options, and decide the best.

ASSIGN: Who does what e.g. flies, gets Wx, ATC, speaks to pax, company, cc etc.

REVIEW: Run through DODAR again, check all crew understand. Review DODAR through the remainder of the problem until the outcome is assured, e.g. Wx might change etc.
 
Sabenaboy
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 5:31 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 2:55 am

Thanks Tom,

We use FORDEC:

Facts
Options
Risks and benefits (of the different options)
Decision
Execution
Check (keep re-evaluating)

Different acronym, but very similar
 
FinnWings
Posts: 633
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 6:03 am

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:09 am

Quoting Sabenaboy (Reply 23):
Could you elaborate on what DODAR stands for, please?

DODAR is nowadays part of JAA training and it is a decision making process for complex, unpredictable problems where SOP isn't practical. The process is developed by BA... Those letters stands for:

D= Diagnosis
O= Options
D= Decide
A= Assign
R= Review

What comes to the topic otherwise.... I'm so amused of some opinions that I'm not going to say anything as it would be something stupid.

EDIT: Oh, Tom was slightly faster than me, sorry about double post.

Best Regards,
FinnWings

[Edited 2005-09-08 20:10:49]
 
schooner
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 10:29 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 6:52 am

Quoting Barney Captain (Reply 2):
Less than 500 hours TT and in the right seat of transport category aircraft? Absolutely not. Sorry folks, we as professional pilots get saddled with an endless litany of tests, restrictions and scrutiny all in the name of flying safety, only to be paired up with someone who needs constant instruction and supervision? I don't think so.

Funny that, I was a professional pilot flying the 757 with 300 hours. I think there is a definate difference in approach to pilot training and recruitment on either side of the pond. Both have their merits BUT both are safe, if they weren`t then the press would be covering plenty of crashes due to pilot error over here and they arent.
Blanket statements like the one above show a slight ignorance of what goes on in Europe. Much of BAs recruitment of the last 30 years has involved taking highly motivated people, training them to a high standard and then sticking them in the right-hand seat of a transport category aircraft. The same can be said for plenty of other operators over here. Its just a different way of doing it.
The biggest critics of the European system on this thread seem to be more experienced American commercial pilots old . Whats the problem guys, so high up on your pedestals that you cannot possibly conceive that a relatively young and low-houred pilot can do the job safely and proficiently Big grin? Remember, just because thats how you do it in the States doesn`t mean its the only way to do it!

Cheers.
Untouched and Alive
 
VuelingAirbus
Topic Author
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 4:44 am

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 7:14 am

Quoting Schooner (Reply 29):
I think there is a definate difference in approach to pilot training and recruitment on either side of the pond. Both have their merits BUT both are safe, if they weren`t then the press would be covering plenty of crashes due to pilot error over here and they arent.

Sorry guys but I didn't want to stirr up those kind of emotions when i started the threat... It's just because I have to fly with relativley new guys all the time and I quite enjoy it because they are quite receptive...

I would like to share another story, wich I dont't know whether I am over it yet... Of course at the begining of my career with no flight time an just a frozen ATPL i was applying at all Airlines possible and i got hired to start on MD80. During my supervision I had a flight with a guy who was TRI and he called me in the hotel room (out of base) to come down to have a briefing because we were supposed to fly the next day. First thing he said was that he is against my presence here and that i do not dezerve to be here. He was flying single engine piston's over the pond till he got a job like mine. So lets go fly the next day with 167 PAX onboard.... so much for positiv motivation... I got promoted after our airline went bancrupt... he is still looking for a job... so much for experience...

[Edited 2005-09-09 00:15:37]
 
schooner
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 10:29 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 7:33 am

VuelingAirbus, just realised you said pretty much the same as me earlier on in the thread with much greater clarity! It just bugs me when some people make blanket statements and show no urge to even entertain a different point of view.

Cheers.
Untouched and Alive
 
VuelingAirbus
Topic Author
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 4:44 am

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 7:49 am

Quoting Schooner (Reply 31):
It just bugs me when some people make blanket statements and show no urge to even entertain a different point of view.

sorry - did i miss something? - however, i know how you feel - seems to be a pattern in my life...
 
schooner
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 10:29 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 8:32 am

Nope, was just qualifying my gentle jibe at some of our older and wiser friends on the other side of the Atlantic, thats all!

Cheers.
Untouched and Alive
 
B744F
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:52 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:17 am

Quoting Woodreau (Reply 17):
Edit: Japan Air Lines (from what I hear) will not hire you if you have any significant pilot time (more than a 100?) before being hired with them, they want you with zero time so that they can train you their way to fly their 747s and 777s.

Where do I sign up??
 
Sabenaboy
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 5:31 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:53 pm

Quoting FinnWings (Reply 28):
DODAR is nowadays part of JAA training

Finnwings,

The acronym DODAR, as far as I know, is never used in any official JAA publication. I suppose that a couple of other airliners and flight schools, have adopted DODAR, but it's not a JAA workmethod. (correct me if I'm wrong)


As I said before: we use FORDEC. (And so does Lufthansa)

Regards,
Sabenaboy
 
barney captain
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 5:06 pm

Quoting Schooner (Reply 29):
The same can be said for plenty of other operators over here. Its just a different way of doing it.
The biggest critics of the European system on this thread seem to be more experienced American commercial pilots . Whats the problem guys, so high up on your pedestals that you cannot possibly conceive that a relatively young and low-houred pilot can do the job safely and proficiently ? Remember, just because thats how you do it in the States doesn`t mean its the only way to do it!

Nice. FWIW, I was a commuter Captain at 25 years of age so I have no problem with "young pilots being able to do the job". I'll say it again, there simply is NO substitute for experience. I have no doubt that you in the EU are trained very well; fine. Can you identify after 250 hours with relative certainty the best way around a squall line, whether or not to approach the field in deteriorating weather, will that CAT over the mountains arriving in LAS be a factor today? Do you see my point? After 16000 hours I am STILL surprised by WX. Diverting around TRW's I still ask my FO his (or her) opinion - they usually have something to add - because they typically have over 5000 hours. At 250 or even 1000 hrs, you simply haven't SEEN enough to make reasonable judgments. Flying is about judgment, that is something that can only be EFFECTIVELY learned on line.

Guys, I have now doubt that folks with 250 hrs can operate the aircraft. The point I think you're missing is that you seem to be so occupied with whether or not they CAN operate the aircraft, you may have lost sight with whether they SHOULD.
Southeast Of Disorder
 
Bellerophon
Posts: 522
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 10:12 am

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:05 pm

Barney Captain

SlamClick has already posted a point of view with which I agree, so I need not repeat what he has already stated.

However, I would like to develop one point you made:

...Flying is about judgment, that is something that can only be EFFECTIVELY learned on line...

I agree. Judgment is learned on line. An applicant who has 2,000 hrs on type with another carrier should have developed a lot of it and will be a very strong candidate for a job. Flying with them is great. On my previous type, most of my co-pilots were 7,000 hr+ Captains from other fleets within the airline. Life was sweet.

So let us agree that experienced airline pilots are our preferred source of pilot recruits.

However, in Europe at least, the supply of experienced airline pilots is fast drying up, so, when recruiting F/Os, the question is now, whom do we select, and how do we select them?

Many of the other categories of pilot applicants described by SlamClick, despite their flying hours, have not had any exposure to line operations with a scheduled carrier, and so will bring little relevant experience or judgment to their new job as a transport pilot.

They may have been excellent pilots in their previous fields, perhaps as a light aircraft instructor, military pilot, air-show pilot, Red Arrow, ag-pilot, ferry pilot etc (and I have trained all such pilots onto the B747) but most will not have acquired much experience relevant to scheduled air transport operations.

For these applicants, their total flying hours are a very crude and unsatisfactory guide to their ability and potential. Some are already very good, some will be, and, sadly, some will never be, but, and this is my point, you won’t tell which is which just by looking at their total flying hours.

For these pilot applicants, because of the general lack of any correlation between flying hours and future abilities, I believe, you must look very closely at the person, their personal qualities and the standard of flying training they have received.

Under these circumstances, it does not surprise me that many airlines in Europe sometimes opt to employ a low-hour pilot who has passed a competitive and rigorous selection procedure for sponsored training and who then graduated from their specialist airline flying school, in preference to a 2,000 hour general aviation or ex-military pilot.

I know that in the USA this has not been the traditional route to a job with the majors, and I know that a 250 hr F/O in an A320 or B737 probably sounds horrendous to US ears, but European airlines have been doing this for around fourty years now, and are more than happy with the standard of F/O they receive.

Properly selected and trained, there is not a problem with low time pilots, as the Air Forces on both sides of the Atlantic have long known.

Flying hours aren’t everything, and just as an aside, many of the pilots I respect and admire have only around a quarter of my flying time in their logbooks!


Regards

Bellerophon
 
CarbHeatIn
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 6:31 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:14 pm

Quoting Barney Captain (Reply 36):
I'll say it again, there simply is NO substitute for experience.

It really depends on the quality of the ''experience''. I really don't see the overwhelming benefit of having, say, thousands of hours flying fast jets in the military (where a significant portion of US pilots originate). Is this ''experience'' of massive benefit in the CRM environment of civil airline operations?
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 11:02 pm

Make no mistake, I do place considerable value on experience, which we usually measure by the hour. But to a greater extent I value more, the quality of that experience. I had lunch yesterday with a friend of mine, a pilot of considerable achievement. We discussed this issue and he commented that I have more flight hours than the entire U.S. Air Force "Thunderbird" flight demonstration team put together. True though that may be, I would be most conceited to compare myself with them.

If you are no better pilot than your next performance these guys, most with less than two thousand hours on average, are really superior pilots. They are not superior because of "talent" but, rather because of focus, discipline, and committment to the proper execution of the task at hand.

A pilot, at 250 hours can be quite valuable to the operation. Depending on personality traits they can be as safe as at any point in a career. It has been discussed here before and there are different numbers thrown around but there is conventional wisdom that says we can all go through a period of over-confidence and complacency which can make us dangerous.

A figure I heard early in my career was at about 100 hours for private pilots, slightly above that for commercial students, and at about 500 hours for military pilots. I'd generalize and say that it is some point after you are on your own, away from the influence of your instructors for a while and developing some "style" of your own. For me it came at about 2500 hours when I was quite the dunghill rooster.

I just took a look at my oldest logbook to see where I was at 250 hours. I was about two flights short of taking my first (military) instrument checkride. There was not much chance of my being cocky at that point. I was whelmed, if not overwhelmed by the syllabus.

Hiring a pilot is a "pig in a poke"(1) proposition. They all come with a resumé and logbooks and some other documents. They are all wearing a conservative suit and a nice necktie and it is hard to tell them apart. Some of them are great, some of them will march through your company unnoticed,, but some of them are untrainable and some will never fit in. Some are even dangerous. How do you tell them apart?

The academy approach, taking raw meat and turning them into pilots is a valid method. By the time they have completed their training the company has had a pretty good look at them. At 250 hours they will be mostly what the company has made of them. Now if they were trained by an agency other than the airline well, now all you have is a low-time pig in a poke.

Personally I'd have a hard time hiring a 250 hour total stranger to fly a big jet. I say this, but I have hired such people to fly "cabin class" twins which is higher workload and if anything, more demanding than being part of a jet crew.

One last consideration. One of the difficult jobs in training a light plane pilot to fly heavy jets is for them to unlearn a bunch of light-plane things. If a student was trained ab initio toward jet transport flying there would be nothing to unlearn. Such a person could make a dandy first officer.

(1) For those of you not familiar with rustic American English this refers to someone trying to sell you a pig in a sack and you cannot inspect the pig - you just have to buy it on faith.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
saab2000
Posts: 1216
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 6:19 pm

RE: Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 11:51 pm

OK Kids,

Here is the truth........

A 250 hour pilot in the US is not the same as a 250 hour pilot in Europe. No, the European pilot is not "better". But the training to get to the 250 in Europe is definitely tougher than in the US.

I was hired to fly my first transport aircraft with 260 hours. I had trained in the JAA system until then. I was very green, to be sure, but I had also passed a lot of hurdles intended to eliminate many of the weaker candidates. This is not arrogance at all. Remember, ALL pilots with this level of time are very inexperienced.

The difference is that in Europe the training is done with the intent of stepping right into an airliner. From day 1 it is to a higher standard. In the US (where I fly now) much of the flight training is done at the local airport and is oriented towards becoming a flight instructor. How a higher time pilot whose time is primarily instructing in a Cessna 152 is somehow superior to a 250 hour professionally trained pilot is beyond me. That 152 PIC time is absolutely irrelevant to flying a larger, faster jet.

In Europe, especially at the larger carriers like BA, AF, LH, LX, IB, etc., the pilots have all been very, very, very carefully screened. They are usually very good and have passed many psychological screenings and aptitude tests. These "250 wonders" are far ahead in their developement than the 250 hour US pilots.

Now that I have said all these inflammitory things, let me say some more things...... It ain't all bad in the US either. There are still a number of filters on the way to the flight deck of any US carrier as well.

I have flown commercially in both the US and in Europe and hold both FAA and JAA licenses. Not conversions either. I have done both and taken flight tests in both places. One is not better than the other. They are different.

Those who say that the US is easy should have been on my Commercial/ME check-ride in Florida. Same holds for my IFR/ME checkride. That FAA examiner was a sadist and those were tough and thorough flight checks.

Same holds true for my simulator training, where I considered the training standard to be at least as high as what I saw in Europe.

The quality of the pilots I have flown with in Europe and the US is ultimately about the same. This is because to get to the cockpit in either place one must pass a number of pretty selective filters.

But I will defintely say that the European training (for the licenses) is far tougher and that a low-time pilot in Europe is more ready to fly a transport plane than a low-time pilot in the US.

Just my opinion. I have done both and worked in both places.

So there.
smrtrthnu

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], climbing230, Starlionblue and 15 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos