Not necessarily true by any stretch of the imagination.

 

not necessarily but more likely

 

Well, they do say that your first 1000 hours are statistically the most dangerous. But Josh is right on- as usual, I'll agree with him 100%.

 

It all depends on the pilot. The 400 hour pilot is probably safer if they have a CFI/CFII/MEI, compared to a 1,200 hour pilot who does not have those ratings. Flight time does is not a linear relationship with accident rate. More advanced ratings/certificates are a better (overall) indicator of safety and expertise.

An example of this is that the toal number of fatal accidents (from 1983-2000) attributed to 1,000 hour Private Pilots, is the same to that attributed to 500 hour IFR-Rated Private Pilots, these two groups have a somewhat equivalent level of safety. This is the main reason the FAA eliminated the time requirement for an IFR rating. Safer pilots tend to have more advanced ratings. That statisitc is from "The Killing Zone" by Paul A. Craig.

 

Here we go................Yankee Mystique

I think QOL of time has more to do with shear numbers...........

 

You're exactly right but the killing zone also shows that 1000 is safer than 400. We're talking about commercial pilots here. You're right about it that a 400 hour cfi is probably better than a 1200 vfr private pilot but a 1200 hour comm/cfi is safer than a 400 comm/cfi.

 

I usually try to stay away from these as I'm not entirely sure I can attest well enough to that question, being i'm not the sharpest tool in the shed.

However, when presented with this type of a question I always ask myself....wouldn't you rather have the guy who regardless of thier TT or ME time for that matter would perhaps be.... humble?... Dare I say get out of thier seat if only to drag one more gate checked bag down to the cargo loading guys just because it's a nice thing to do?

Somebody who when given a hold can subtract the reserve(+ALTN) fuel from the FOB and give you a rough estimate as to how many minutes of hold you have left in you without scrambling an FMS keyboard for that?...

Wouldn't you rather have the guy who would say heck I'm not sure, but I do believe it's this way or the other... and then give you the leeway to think and maybe even do what you think within given parameters (read safety margin) so you could actually learn in a good way and not by being yelled at with no reason and without even seeing the results of your decision? (FOs and CAs alike...)

Finally, I would rather fly with the one who can do all of the above and in the worst morning, a reduced rest morning after 5 legs the day before and before 4 long ones today could get into his seat, do his job quietly, in a humble way, be patient with me and then just then, smile and adore a beautiful sunrise on the horizon and be thankful we all have jobs and ones that we like.

 

Touche' Mr. Schone!

 

400 or 1200 hours? That would depend entirely on how well he or she flies the airplane, his willingness to learn and adapt to different situations and most importantly attitude. I think that Josh, Boiler and Schone made excellent points regarding this.

As has been mentioned before, the Europeans have been putting extremely low time pilots in the right seat for years and the aircraft aren't falling out of the sky (and I'm referring to Western Europe, not Eastern Europe, Central Asia, North Africa etc. who face an entirely different set of challenges...).

It is true that the training and selection process is different in Europe. The process of selection is more rigorous and the training is often airline orientated from day one. That being said, the most significant difference is that more Captains accept their role as a mentor so that the FO may become a more skilled and well rounded airline pilot and future captain.

Since lower time pilots are once again a reality here in the US, would it not make more sense for those in the left seat to adopt a more pragmatic attitude regardless of their personal feelings? If the person in the right seat is proficient, knowledgeable and willing to learn, why not help him become the more experienced well rounded pilot you would like sitting beside you?

As others have mentioned, times have changed and you can not really blame a pilot for taking an opportunity that was not available to those who came before him. To those who are so adamantly against the lower time pilots, can you honestly say that you would have turned down a job had it been offered to you when you were low time? That being said, I think the selection criteria should be stricter for lower time pilots. The candidate must have a certain level of maturity and life experience.

 

I agree with this but how do you put that on a resume? You don't find that out until you have an interview or get hired.