Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




View Full Version : Canadian Pilot Shortage?


Aviationluver
02-14-2017, 05:19 PM
I was just curious if there is a pilot shortage in Canada? With US airlines like Skywest hiring Canadian pilots over US pilots, etc. Is Air Canada, WestJet, etc. hurting for pilots?


Marinth
02-14-2017, 07:13 PM
I haven't seen anything about Canadian pilots being hired by US carriers yet, however to answer your second question, WestJet and Air Canada are having no issues finding pilots, their regionals are starting to feel a pinch, like the regionals in the US, maybe just a year or two behind.

adebord
02-15-2017, 07:37 AM
Does Canada have the 1500hr rule?

If not I suspect their 'shortage' will never come.


canuckian
02-15-2017, 11:48 AM
Nope, straight out of college with 200 hours you're in an RJ. A couple of years of that and then Air Canada.

Aviationluver
02-21-2017, 07:52 PM
Why is it that only the USA has such crazy hour requirements and hoops to jump through? "Temporarily" (hopefully) working as an instructor to foreign students. I'll be extremely lucky to get a job flying a King Air while my former students will be jetting across the world in transport category aircraft.

IDIOTPILOT
02-21-2017, 08:10 PM
Why is it that only the USA has such crazy hour requirements and hoops to jump through? "Temporarily" (hopefully) working as an instructor to foreign students. I'll be extremely lucky to get a job flying a King Air while my former students will be jetting across the world in transport category aircraft.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colgan_Air_Flight_3407

chris tarderz
02-21-2017, 08:23 PM
Its just a way for the government to please the public and say they did something about it. In all reality the accident had nothing to do with hours but rather the type of training the crew received plus being fatigued.

NMuir
02-21-2017, 08:54 PM
Why is it that only the USA has such crazy hour requirements and hoops to jump through? "Because the government hates freedom.

ilyushin96
02-21-2017, 09:34 PM
Why is it that only the USA has such crazy hour requirements and hoops to jump through? "Temporarily" (hopefully) working as an instructor to foreign students. I'll be extremely lucky to get a job flying a King Air while my former students will be jetting across the world in transport category aircraft.

Too many unemployed locals with CPL in some Asian countries. I'd be happier in US doing instructing or doing Part 135 until I hit 1500 hrs and go to regional. With those sign-up bonuses, the annual salary works out to be on par with local Asian pilot salaries anyway.

2StgTurbine
02-22-2017, 05:33 AM
In all reality the accident had nothing to do with hours but rather the type of training the crew received plus being fatigued.

The accident DID have something to do with flight time. Both pilots got into a transport category too early in their careers. They never got a chance to fine tune basic airmanship skills in smaller aircraft. They were put into planes that had enough power and automation to cover up mistakes.

A 250 hour pilot can fly a 777. The problem is that after a few years, they still won't have the real world experience needed to upgrade and if they did, it would be dangerous if they got paired with another 250 hour pilot.

Denti
02-22-2017, 06:53 AM
The accident DID have something to do with flight time. Both pilots got into a transport category too early in their careers. They never got a chance to fine tune basic airmanship skills in smaller aircraft. They were put into planes that had enough power and automation to cover up mistakes.

A 250 hour pilot can fly a 777. The problem is that after a few years, they still won't have the real world experience needed to upgrade and if they did, it would be dangerous if they got paired with another 250 hour pilot.

A claim that is not supported at all by facts, to be honest. Since WWII cadets flying airliners directly after flight school has been the norm in all of europe, especially with all legacy carriers, and many other western countries as well. It is not about boring holes in the sky with a C150 for 1500 hours, it is about the right training from the start. And that was apparently lacking.

NMuir
02-22-2017, 04:41 PM
The accident DID have something to do with flight time. Keep on repeating that union line... the more times you do, the less people will believe that myth :rolleyes:

adebord
02-22-2017, 05:47 PM
A claim that is not supported at all by facts, to be honest. Since WWII cadets flying airliners directly after flight school has been the norm in all of europe, especially with all legacy carriers, and many other western countries as well. It is not about boring holes in the sky with a C150 for 1500 hours, it is about the right training from the start. And that was apparently lacking.

Continental Europe barely had airliners to operate before the 1960's. Since 1950, more air seat miles have been flown inside the US than the rest of the world combined. Yet N. America (Canada and Mexico included) has had 88 large fatal accidents while Europe has had 133 in the same time period.


You are in the ballpark of 7x more likely to be involved in an accident in Europe than the U.S.

2StgTurbine
02-22-2017, 09:35 PM
A claim that is not supported at all by facts, to be honest.

Please share your experience then. I am a current CFI and airline pilot who has been involved in training for years. I was also flying at airlines prior to the 1500 hour rule and had to fly with captains who got hired with 250-500 hours. It showed! There were too many instances of the FO pointing out mistakes that the captain should have found. I was in the jumpseat when on final approach to a runway in winter and IMC, the tower reported a 15 knot tailwind with poor braking action. The captain didn't understand that both the aircraft limitations and the FOM prevented us from landing. This captain was also a check airmen. I don't know what he would have done if an experienced FO wasn't in the right seat.

Since WWII cadets flying airliners directly after flight school has been the norm in all of europe, especially with all legacy carriers, and many other western countries as well.

And their training departments and company policies reflect that. Have you seen the a written test for a JAA pilot certificate? They require a high level of knowledge about advanced aircraft even if you are just going to be flying a Seminole. They actually have a different rank for low time FOs and they spend a couple of years flying with training captains.

It is not about boring holes in the sky with a C150 for 1500 hours

I agree. That is why you won't find anyone saying to go bore holes in the sky until you get 1500 hours. Work as a CFI and get proficient in explaining flight maneuvers and recovering from unusual attitudes, get a tail wheel endorsement, take some soaring lessons, get a seaplane rating, fly some solo IFR countries, find some turboprop operator who will let you sit in the right seat, in short, gain experience.


it is about the right training from the start. And that was apparently lacking.

That is true. But in the US, not everyone wants to learn to fly so they can become an airline pilot. Many learn to fly because they only want to fly GA. It would be ridiculous to require a commercial pilot who is only going to be flying a C172 to have the same level of knowledge as a pilot who will be flying a CRJ. They did modify the training for ATP applicants and I think it is a good start.

I know it might be frustrating to have to build time to get an ATP, but how is that different than a commercial certificate? I can get most students to pass commercial checkride by 150 hours, but the FAA won't let them take the ride until they get 250 hours. That might seem absurd, but at 150 hours, those pilots are nothing more than trained monkeys. They are able to regurgitate what has been taught to them, but they don't have enough experience to really understand what it is they are doing.

2StgTurbine
02-22-2017, 09:38 PM
Keep on repeating that union line... the more times you do, the less people will believe that myth :rolleyes:

That is not a union line. It is something I have personally experienced.

Do you have 1500 hours? Have you ever flown with a captain who was hired by an airline at 250 hours? Have you ever worked as a CFI? Have you ever had to provide instruction in a turbine aircraft to someone with less than 1500 hours?

kevbo
02-23-2017, 01:29 AM
Like anything you do, you either have the knack or you don't. Flying is not that difficult, just enough so to kill off the really poor operators. Ive had guys that could shoot perfect NDB approaches at 50hrs while some ATPs i know would be dead without an ILS. IQ starts to matter when ever problems mount and the workload increases, training and experience can make up for a lot but not all of it.

Denti
02-24-2017, 03:26 AM
Please share your experience then. I am a current CFI and airline pilot who has been involved in training for years. I was also flying at airlines prior to the 1500 hour rule and had to fly with captains who got hired with 250-500 hours. It showed! There were too many instances of the FO pointing out mistakes that the captain should have found. I was in the jumpseat when on final approach to a runway in winter and IMC, the tower reported a 15 knot tailwind with poor braking action. The captain didn't understand that both the aircraft limitations and the FOM prevented us from landing. This captain was also a check airmen. I don't know what he would have done if an experienced FO wasn't in the right seat.

Well, i do fly in europe and have been brought up in that system. So i do have some practical experience in that system. Yes, there are some bad pilots, as there are in systems where you have to have quite a lot more experience to get hired. Incidentally like both Colgan pilots had. We do hire mostly MPL cadets these days, preferably from our own flight school, next in line would be internal applicants from other schools (flying as cabin crew, working in other departments etc.) and after that lufthansa cadets. MPL students usually bring around 100 hours in real aircraft and around 200 in simulators, all of them flying using airline SOPs from the start in a multi-crew environment. The last audit from our partners in oneworld, including auditors from american airlines, showed the same level of safety as our counterparts in the us and elsewhere have.

And their training departments and company policies reflect that. Have you seen the a written test for a JAA pilot certificate? They require a high level of knowledge about advanced aircraft even if you are just going to be flying a Seminole. They actually have a different rank for low time FOs and they spend a couple of years flying with training captains.

The first part is true, the written test for the EASA CPL (JAA doesn't exist anymore) is big on theoretical knowledge. The second part is not. There is no extra rank, and they spend around 100 hours flying with a training captain during LIFUS (line flying under supervision), usually 1,5 months on the line. After that they are released with all the rights and options that any FO has, however, they may not be rostered with an inexperienced captain for the the first 150 hours. Other airlines might have extra rules, and i believe that some do have a second officer status that they have for the first 1500 hours of line experience, but that is actually unusual and not done in my country, except for the one airline that hires MPL students directly on the 777.

I agree. That is why you won't find anyone saying to go bore holes in the sky until you get 1500 hours. Work as a CFI and get proficient in explaining flight maneuvers and recovering from unusual attitudes, get a tail wheel endorsement, take some soaring lessons, get a seaplane rating, fly some solo IFR countries, find some turboprop operator who will let you sit in the right seat, in short, gain experience.

Indeed, those are very good ideas. However, they are not a requirement for the ATPL.

That is true. But in the US, not everyone wants to learn to fly so they can become an airline pilot. Many learn to fly because they only want to fly GA. It would be ridiculous to require a commercial pilot who is only going to be flying a C172 to have the same level of knowledge as a pilot who will be flying a CRJ. They did modify the training for ATP applicants and I think it is a good start.

Well, over here there is no commercial single engine operation to speak of, certainly not in piston powered planes. Multi engine turbine powered commercial operation is usually required by law to be flown in multicrew operation. And for those aiming to fly a C172 a PPL is enough. But yes, one big difference between europe and the US is the fact that the GA market is not a viable route to the airlines for most pilots, both in size and job opportunities. GA is a much much smaller sector.

I know it might be frustrating to have to build time to get an ATP, but how is that different than a commercial certificate? I can get most students to pass commercial checkride by 150 hours, but the FAA won't let them take the ride until they get 250 hours. That might seem absurd, but at 150 hours, those pilots are nothing more than trained monkeys. They are able to regurgitate what has been taught to them, but they don't have enough experience to really understand what it is they are doing.

Oh, personally i couldn't care less, i never even held a CPL, i started out with an ATPL right out of flight school. And my first commercial airplane was the 737. My point was, that current numbers between western european countries and the US do not show a significant difference to support the ATPL (wrongly called the 1500 hour) rule.

adebord
02-24-2017, 06:07 PM
Well, i do fly in europe and have been brought up in that system. So i do have some practical experience in that system. Yes, there are some bad pilots, as there are in systems where you have to have quite a lot more experience to get hired. Incidentally like both Colgan pilots had. We do hire mostly MPL cadets these days, preferably from our own flight school, next in line would be internal applicants from other schools (flying as cabin crew, working in other departments etc.) and after that lufthansa cadets. MPL students usually bring around 100 hours in real aircraft and around 200 in simulators, all of them flying using airline SOPs from the start in a multi-crew environment. The last audit from our partners in oneworld, including auditors from american airlines, showed the same level of safety as our counterparts in the us and elsewhere have.



The first part is true, the written test for the EASA CPL (JAA doesn't exist anymore) is big on theoretical knowledge. The second part is not. There is no extra rank, and they spend around 100 hours flying with a training captain during LIFUS (line flying under supervision), usually 1,5 months on the line. After that they are released with all the rights and options that any FO has, however, they may not be rostered with an inexperienced captain for the the first 150 hours. Other airlines might have extra rules, and i believe that some do have a second officer status that they have for the first 1500 hours of line experience, but that is actually unusual and not done in my country, except for the one airline that hires MPL students directly on the 777.



Indeed, those are very good ideas. However, they are not a requirement for the ATPL.



Well, over here there is no commercial single engine operation to speak of, certainly not in piston powered planes. Multi engine turbine powered commercial operation is usually required by law to be flown in multicrew operation. And for those aiming to fly a C172 a PPL is enough. But yes, one big difference between europe and the US is the fact that the GA market is not a viable route to the airlines for most pilots, both in size and job opportunities. GA is a much much smaller sector.



Oh, personally i couldn't care less, i never even held a CPL, i started out with an ATPL right out of flight school. And my first commercial airplane was the 737. My point was, that current numbers between western european countries and the US do not show a significant difference to support the ATPL (wrongly called the 1500 hour) rule.


I don't know your circumstances personally, but my limited experience observing in a Irish airline doesn't lead me to agree with you. The stick and rudder skills of European pilots raised in these 'schemes' are non existent. Can they read a checklist and program an FMS? Sure. So can everyone else with a pulse, but that's not what makes a pilot.

I don't know who keeps spouting the 'crash statistics are the same' line, it's not true either.

canuckian
02-28-2017, 04:36 AM
250 hours new grads in a 737

http://m.therecord.com/news-story/7156230-uw-grads-take-to-the-skies-with-sunwing

shoestrings1229
03-01-2017, 07:24 AM
I thought this thread was supposed to about the question of if there's a Canadian pilot shortage....

From my understanding there is. Westjet's goal was to have 100% flow thru from Encore. They're down to near 50% now from their previous 70-75%. They (the Encore side) are needing to hire an addition 250 pilots this year just based on upgrades and retirement/attrition. That doesn't account for the 10 new tails they're getting this year. They (mainline) just recently had a posting for street FOs and Encore has had an open posting for street captains for months now.

Over on the Air Canada side, they're taking pilots from their regional partners much faster than they can replace them. Jazz needs 300 additional pilots this year, and Sky Regional had 130 in their last class alone and again has a posting up for more. just prior to that they had a posting for the E175 street captains which they NEVER do.

Just my two cents

NEDude
03-10-2017, 09:25 AM
I don't know who keeps spouting the 'crash statistics are the same' line, it's not true either.

According to IATA, the overall rate of jet hull losses per 1 million flight hours from 2011 to 2015 was 0.12 for Europe and 0.17 for North America. In 2016 Europe had a rate of 0.27 while North America had 0.31. The data indicates the safety rate for commercial jet air transportation is very similar between North America and Europe.

Source:
http://www.iata.org/pressroom/facts_figures/fact_sheets/Documents/fact-sheet-safety.pdf

Javichu
03-11-2017, 11:59 PM
So shortage or not shortage, what's gonna be :)


Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

HercDriver130
03-12-2017, 06:11 AM
Jeez.. whats difficult to understand. You should have an AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT certificate to fly in a commercial passenger operation. I dont think thats too much to ask. I also feel that I would have no problem with allowing exceptions for those who go thru very structured "cadet'" type programs with strict time lines and standards... ie.... if a guy is scheduled to solo at 10 hours he damn well be ready to solo plus or minus an hour or so of that mark. Same for other things. If the syllabus requires the CPL at 250 hours with "X" number of flights.. DO it.. if they can't get it done in the required time line... maybe they are not cut out to do this for a living...... The REASON I think the ATP rule is good is it allows under our CURRENT system.. those who are lets say.. not as quick to get it.. to get some experience and perhaps raise their skill levels...

Yes ..yes.. what I propose would be akin to old style military training programs...... many who could have passed didnt because they couldn't do it under the stress and timelines presented. And really.. do you want your family flying with the guys who barely got thru???

This business is NOT cut out for everybody.. hell I know guys who can fly the crap out of an airplane but put them under a stressor... and they can't keep it all together. NO system is perfect... but if you want 250 hour pilots in commercial jets I personally think we need a much much stricter training system in place.

captjns
03-12-2017, 08:30 AM
Jeez.. whats difficult to understand. You should have an AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT certificate to fly in a commercial passenger operation. I dont think thats too much to ask. I also feel that I would have no problem with allowing exceptions for those who go thru very structured "cadet'" type programs with strict time lines and standards... ie.... if a guy is scheduled to solo at 10 hours he damn well be ready to solo plus or minus an hour or so of that mark. Same for other things. If the syllabus requires the CPL at 250 hours with "X" number of flights.. DO it.. if they can't get it done in the required time line... maybe they are not cut out to do this for a living...... The REASON I think the ATP rule is good is it allows under our CURRENT system.. those who are lets say.. not as quick to get it.. to get some experience and perhaps raise their skill levels...

Yes ..yes.. what I propose would be akin to old style military training programs...... many who could have passed didnt because they couldn't do it under the stress and timelines presented. And really.. do you want your family flying with the guys who barely got thru???

This business is NOT cut out for everybody.. hell I know guys who can fly the crap out of an airplane but put them under a stressor... and they can't keep it all together. NO system is perfect... but if you want 250 hour pilots in commercial jets I personally think we need a much much stricter training system in place.

The "250 hour B737/A320 pilot" has been on the scene for many years. I can attest that fact. Some 14 years ago, while flying for a Euroland LCC, I flew with newbies. Fresh from flight training in the U.S. then assessed by the carrier they wanted to fly with. Earned a frozen ATPL with CAE or Oxford. Final assessment with the airline they wanted to fly for then hired if all went well. These newbies were given two stripes and labeled "cadets", and off to line training they went. Were they perfect, not in the least. But did they want to learn? Most did. Where are they now 14 years later? Some are now captains flying heavies, while some are still at the carrier where their career started. They airline I was with had some of the strictest training and checking standards. In fact this is a method practiced in many countries around the world. Safety? Well, some will argue the case that it's a single pilot operation. But at the end of the day, how many hull losses involved newbies in the right seat versus a seasoned pilot who came up through the commuters or military?

captjns
03-12-2017, 08:40 AM
Jeez.. whats difficult to understand. You should have an AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT certificate to fly in a commercial passenger operation. I dont think thats too much to ask. I also feel that I would have no problem with allowing exceptions for those who go thru very structured "cadet'" type programs with strict time lines and standards... ie.... if a guy is scheduled to solo at 10 hours he damn well be ready to solo plus or minus an hour or so of that mark. Same for other things. If the syllabus requires the CPL at 250 hours with "X" number of flights.. DO it.. if they can't get it done in the required time line... maybe they are not cut out to do this for a living...... The REASON I think the ATP rule is good is it allows under our CURRENT system.. those who are lets say.. not as quick to get it.. to get some experience and perhaps raise their skill levels...

Yes ..yes.. what I propose would be akin to old style military training programs...... many who could have passed didnt because they couldn't do it under the stress and timelines presented. And really.. do you want your family flying with the guys who barely got thru???

This business is NOT cut out for everybody.. hell I know guys who can fly the crap out of an airplane but put them under a stressor... and they can't keep it all together. NO system is perfect... but if you want 250 hour pilots in commercial jets I personally think we need a much much stricter training system in place.

The "250 hour B737/A320 pilot" has been on the scene for many years. I can attest that fact. Some 14 years ago, while flying for a Euroland LCC, I flew with newbies. Fresh from flight training in the U.S. then assessed by the carrier they wanted to fly with. Earned a frozen ATPL with CAE or Oxford. Final assessment with the airline they wanted to fly for then hired if all went well. These newbies were given two stripes and labeled "cadets", and off to line training they went. Were they perfect, not in the least. But did they want to learn? Most did. Where are they now 14 years later? Some are now captains flying heavies, while some are still at the carrier where their career started. They airline I was with had some of the strictest training and checking standards. In fact this is a method practiced in many countries around the world. Safety? Well, some will argue the case that it's a single pilot operation.

In recent years, there has been a rash of incidences, thankfully non-fatal, with air carriers ranging from landing at the wrong airport, and on taxiways. And there were fatal incidences resulting from a missed approach to jet upset, all with significant time and adequate training.

That said, one can't assume that hull losses or incidences is related to the experience of the individual in the right seat.

The final gate keeper, is the training and checking department of the airline. Through their processes, they deem a crew member to be adequate to serve as a member of their flight deck.

HercDriver130
03-12-2017, 12:02 PM
With the right training sure... I have no issues with the premise.

Duesenflieger
03-12-2017, 07:46 PM
Productivity wins out over protection any day/every day.

OldWeasel
03-14-2017, 05:34 AM
Help me understand how 1250 hrs of banner tow, glider tug, or diver driver will better prepare me for the right seat of an RJ? It just seems like a time burn. Is it really much more than that?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

NEDude
03-14-2017, 06:39 AM
Help me understand how 1250 hrs of banner tow, glider tug, or diver driver will better prepare me for the right seat of an RJ? It just seems like a time burn. Is it really much more than that?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think the argument is that during that 1250 hours, as PIC, you will be the one making the decisions. Sure, there may be no big specific events that occur during that time, but perhaps there will be. But regardless of whether "big" events happen to you, for 1250 hours you are the guy making the decisions, whether you have enough fuel, if the weather is acceptable, whether the aircraft is airworthy, etc. Even those seemingly mundane or routine decisions do build a solid foundation for bigger, or more consequential decisions down the road.

That being said, as I pointed out earlier, the more recent data from IATA shows that there is negligible difference in safety between the U.S. approach and the European approach.

OldWeasel
03-14-2017, 06:57 AM
I think the argument is that during that 1250 hours, as PIC, you will be the one making the decisions. Sure, there may be no big specific events that occur during that time, but perhaps there will be. But regardless of whether "big" events happen to you, for 1250 hours you are the guy making the decisions, whether you have enough fuel, if the weather is acceptable, whether the aircraft is airworthy, etc. Even those seemingly mundane or routine decisions do build a solid foundation for bigger, or more consequential decisions down the road.



That being said, as I pointed out earlier, the more recent data from IATA shows that there is negligible difference in safety between the U.S. approach and the European approach.



I concur with the growth and strengthening of decision making. My only argument would be the opportunity to practice 1250 hrs of bad habits. Some appear innocuous but habits that have had so long to fester may either cause you to miss an opportunity, or be something the airline will need to address. Training in a 121 environment sooner may circumvent that. Unless I am missing something, what is the 1500hr rule really trying to establish?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Space Ranger
03-14-2017, 09:03 AM
I also concur with the growth and decision making. Lots to be learned in that time frame.

NEDude
03-14-2017, 09:59 AM
I have not had much experience with very low time pilots in Europe. But I did fly with one FO who had around 400 hours total time and he was quite sharp. Granted he had a masters degree in aerospace engineering and had worked as an engineer for Airbus for over a decade before moving to the Airbus training department for a few years. So he was definitely not the norm for 400 hour pilots. But overall I have not noticed much difference in the quality of pilots between Europe and the States. Now China...that's a different story.

2StgTurbine
03-14-2017, 12:15 PM
Unless I am missing something, what is the 1500hr rule really trying to establish?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Odds are you will not simply be towing a banner for 1250 hours. You will be exposed to business and economic pressures that you never experienced in training. Your boss will make comments about maintenance costs, fuel, and revenue. That pressure may affect your decisions as a pilot in an insidious way.

The tire might look a little worn, but you just caught this after the last mechanic left for the night right before a flight. Are you going to cancel the flight or are you going to go? Maybe you decide to go and get lucky and make it back, maybe you don't. Either way, you are likely going to remember that uncomfortable feeling you had as you realized your actions can have a huge impact on revenue. Maybe you decide to change your work habits and get to the aircraft early to preflight the thing before the mechanic leaves.

How would that translate into the 121 world? The weather may be bad on the day you plan to commute into work. Those 1250 hours you worked as a professional pilot taught you the value of being conservative and acting proactively, so you decide to commute in the night before.

And as far as bd habits are concerned. Seeing how 90% of the pilots in the US had a more than 1,000 hours before they got hired at an airline whatever bad habits they had are things the training department has seen before. I would argue that over the 2 years it takes to build 1,500 hours you would likely figure out what habits are bad and what are good.

The Dominican
03-15-2017, 03:20 AM
Now China...that's a different story.

I find it interesting that this seems to be the overall opinion (Of Asian pilots in general) but the vast majority of accidents on the last two decades have been with western crews at the helm.

Things that make you go hum?:rolleyes:

NEDude
03-15-2017, 03:39 AM
I find it interesting that this seems to be the overall opinion (Of Asian pilots in general) but the vast majority of accidents on the last two decades have been with western crews at the helm.

Things that make you go hum?:rolleyes:

...Source?

Broncofan
03-15-2017, 04:15 PM
...Source?

Thinking about it and I can't say I agree with that statement. If it were true however I would counter by asking what percentage of flights are US and European vs Asian. I might be completely wrong because I haven't looked at the numbers but I'll go out on a limb and say the the US and Euro safety records are far better statistically.

adebord
03-16-2017, 06:32 PM
According to IATA, the overall rate of jet hull losses per 1 million flight hours from 2011 to 2015 was 0.12 for Europe and 0.17 for North America. In 2016 Europe had a rate of 0.27 while North America had 0.31. The data indicates the safety rate for commercial jet air transportation is very similar between North America and Europe.

Source:
http://www.iata.org/pressroom/facts_figures/fact_sheets/Documents/fact-sheet-safety.pdf

Europeans crash airplanes outside of Euro carriers. FZ 981, QZ 8501.. Euro 'heros'

NEDude
03-17-2017, 08:54 AM
Europeans crash airplanes outside of Euro carriers. FZ 981, QZ 8501.. Euro 'heros'

Who called them "heros"? I think you need to go back and re-read what was said, because the word heros was not mentioned.

Secondly - regarding QZ8501 - So it is your contention that the Indonesian captain re-setting the FAC circuit breakers in flight, despite the QRH warning not to do so, played no role in the crash? It was entirely the fault of the FO?