Originally Posted by
daniel0265
So is that why some low time academy pilots can pass their sims in 8 lessons plus the checkride and old 1500TT pilots with only steam gauge experience needs 10-20 lessons? (seen it happend a few times) These jets are glass and glass is the industry norm now. Younger lower times pilots trained in them and some old high time pilots never seen them. If you are a passenger in a helo, would you want a 500TT (all rotor time) pilot or a 5000TT (100hr rotor time) pilot?
The 1500TT absolutely has more experience but was it quality experience or just 1500hrs of crappy flying? Seen guys with that kind of time have trouble holding altitude in a 172! Yet I have also seen low time pilots with crappy skills also.
I think both sides have great points. I really don't think there is a good and bad answer to who would you rather have. I think each responce to this original question is valid. Just each individual pilot has to prove that they are airline commerical quality pilots. (whatever that is)
Spoken like a true 400 hour wonder. I'd take the guy/gal with 1500TT and 100 Rotor. He/she has seen more then the 400 hour know it all.
There is a reason the 135 rules require 500TT for day VFR and 1200TT for IFR to fly a simple 172 delivering packages or people.... it is single pilot, and with less than that level of experience most typically have not developed a high level of aeronautical decision making. The reason 121's can hire 400 hour wonder kids is because they are not in command, and by the time they do get to be in command (hopefully) they will have seen enough, and learned enough to be able to make sound decisions.
Are there stories of people doing 1400 hours in a 150 in day VFR doing traffic reporting or things like that... absolutely it happens... and typically those planes are not the best maintained, and those folks have dealt with their share of emergencies... however, the vast majority of folks with the 1500 hour plus, have been doing much more significant type of flying, in a multitude of different equipment types.
Do "new" pilots have a slight advantage at flying the video game? Sure they do, they were raised playing video games... however, these same wonder kids are not better then a more seasoned pilot with the crap hits the fan. I have seen, and heard, of many new guys basically freezing up when the master caution, or master warning went off in flight... they became virtually useless to their Captains.
The guys that you are disparaging tend to be more calm in those situations... in fact, I sat next to one guy, who when something very unexpected happened... started laughing, and said "hey, look at that; ok, AOM volume 1, XYZ checklist." It was much easier to work as a team with somebody who had dealt with emergencies in the past, than to teach the new kid that the plane isn't going to fall out of the sky unless you let it, so grab the cheklist.
The aeronautical decision making of the recent batch of new hires at most airlines seems to be fairly consistant... they are not thinking ahead of the airplane and are still working at seminole speeds. This will get cured in time... I hope. I do know our IOE instructors have been complaining that they used to provide orientation to airline ops, and pointers and techniques to make the systems work better for pax comfort and stuff liek that... now they say they are teaching how to fly. IOE has gone from 25 hours to 75 hours... and the line Capt's are having problems with the newbies too.
Moral of the story.... new isn't always better.