john you are correct, but what youre refering to is APPLICABLE experience. A 5000 hour Cessna CFI is going to be just as useless to you in the right seat of a Jet as a 300 hour FO. By useless I mean hes never had to dodge Tstorms at FL270, hes never had to deal with a drunk passenger, hes never had to work an FMS.

a low timer who has been through an Advanced Jet Course knows how to do those things for you. minus the drunk passenger. me personally id depressurize the airplane and drop the masks. just kidding

 

Ok, so back to my original thought.... How is the washout @ you're regional training facility.....??

 

We lost 3 of 16 in my class. 1 was let go during indoc because of "background issues". 1 was worthless from the get go, thank God they didn't make it through (but good enough for Gulfstream...). 1 choked at the PC for whatever reason.

 

I must be bored out of my skull to even chime into this never-ending debate. The fact is there are no facts out there that can prove or even conclusively imply that low-timers are a cause of higher accident rates. It is often quite the opposite if these flights (which I remembered off the top of my head) are a guide:

United 173- Oregon

KLM/ Pan Am- Tenerife

American 1420- Little Rock

American 965- Cali, Colombia

There are many more accidents where the experience level of the crew could not possibly be called in to question and even if the next 20 RJs that were lost were due exclusively to low-timers, they would still not approach the lives lost with very experienced crew-members.

Though I cannot stop other members from posting their opinions (nor would I want to), I've found that this site has taken a decided turn for the worse in the past few months. I used to read here for over a year before I joined and I must say the quality of the information in the average posts has declined significantly. There are about 10-20 posters that spew their repetitive opinions apparently apparently hoping that saying the same thing in a hunderd different posts may make it fact; these posters must be fans of Stephen Colbert and the Colbert Reports 'wikiality' (look it up).

There are some that are dead-seat against low-timers, whatever definition they use, and there are some that think they deserve a chance. The facts and statistics do not support those that are against low-timers, only their opinions do.

 

good post dundem. ironically enough, if there was a 300 hour advanced jet trained FO in American 965, he or she would have been able to successfully program the correct NDB in the FMS. Nothing against the crew it could have happened to anybody. In this case, two "old timers" were not familiar with new technology.

 

Like freezing, we lost 3/16 before Sims; I haven't kept in touch with everyone to know if we lost any more in Sims or IOE.

As far as I can see, Xjet will give you a shot with low-time, but they are certainly not lowering the standards to let anyone through. Though I had prior 121 experience, I still had to study hard and work at it to make it through.

 

Do you want to look into the Military's LTP accident rates? They are actually a lot higher by experience.

 

please post those, i think it would be very good info

 

Im not even gonna comment that....but hey.... they can teach a monkey to fly......

 

Flaps50, though the missions are drastically different, I would truly be interested in seeing the unbiased, verifiable stats regarding low-timers in multi-crew environments from the military. 'This guy I know' or 'the unit I'm in' doesn't count. APA standards with appropriate references would be great. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I would like to see some facts that point in one way or the other as I'm always willing to learn.