Originally Posted by
Rhino Driver
[/color]
This is EXACTLY why I think the military training program produces better, more experienced aviators. The military ROUTINELY flies "outside of the typical profile." What is an emergency? I definitely believe it falls outside the typical profile. The day to day point A to B flying that we routinely do is very uneventful. The experience is truly required when the ******* hits the fan, so to speak. I would much rather be flying with someone who has flown an entire career on the edge, making split second decisions, in this case, than someone who went to the airlines with 200 hours doing nothing but flying point A to B.
This is not MIL v CIV debate. It's an experience debate. You can make the same argument for the guy who flew the checks at night in crappy IFR, towed banners during the day, flight instructed for hundreds of hours, went on to flying multiple different aircraft in the corporate world, flew for a regional, and then came to the majors.
Ab-initio/MPL programs will never produce a truly experienced pilot.
I use elements of the above point to answer the following quote:
Originally Posted by
SkyHigh
What are they paying for? Over the last five years the industry has seen a flood of extremely low time pilots and aircraft are not exactly falling out of the sky.
The public is paying for the cheapest possible ticket. Pilots are the ones who are willing to show up for the wages that are being offered.
Skyhigh
Sky, you are probably right about the labor being the real collective suckers at the entry level. But I listen to what my mentors (Captains) tell me about the whole situation: A lot of the low time newcomers that make it to the line do just fine when flying profiles, but throw something unique or abnormal at them, and they struggle or crumble.
I'm all about marginal changes; how low can the qualifications go before they're dangerous? Have we reached that limit already?
Maybe 200 hours and 121 school prepare a pilot for 90% emergencies (arbitrary value blanketing infinite amount of unique scenarios).
But when you do the dishes, the first 90% of crud comes off the plate easily.
It's that last 10%, the toughest margin, that is tough to get off.
I theorize that pilots are, all too often, only prepared for that first 90%...as this is what is legally required and economically feasible based on the current business models and environment.
But experience is what hardens you for the worst of things...that last marginal increment is meant to represent the unexpected, unusual, and most adverse...like a bird strike at less than 2000 AGL that knocks out both engines over densely populated turf. This will probably become
the cliche scenario representing that last 10% from the twilight zone.
My thought is that whether a low timer will be able to get the necessary time to handle "that last 10%" by the time he or she upgrades will continue to vary with the individual...But, all other things being equal, I'll put my money on the guy with 2,000 hours of challenging work in the right environment before I look at the same guy with 200 hours, who has never been challenged. At least with 2,000 hours of (respectable) experience he or she is more likely to handle that 10%.
Ceteris paribus, the difference in judgment or skill between a pilot with 10,000 and 12,000 hours may be not be significant or consistent. But the difference between 300 and 800 hours can be huge. Just as the difference between a 10 hour solo student and a private pilot with 60 hours can be monumental.
I do wonder at what point the qualifications are low enough that the time till upgrade is like one long stretch of true on-the-job training. The title is CA right? Not C(fi)A?
This is all just my conjecture...I do enjoy the debate. Cheers.