They are two large-scale, non-military flight schools that were used as examples. You are welcome to substitute any other name you wish.

 

No, not yet, Academy in February. No I just want to know why low time pilots are getting bashed when theyre not the cause of any major crashes? I mean if the most recent crash was that of a regional RJ with a low time FO at the controls who started flipping out and didnt know what to do when there was some sort of problem causing the plane to go down and kill all onboard then I think we could possibly discuss this but I dont think any low time FO's have been the reason behind anyone dying yet. Im not saying theyre perfect, every pilot has an occasional screw up.

 

It's mitigating the risk.

I wish I still had a copy of the form, and it's been a few years so I might not get this 100% right. Our unit had a risk assessment matrix that was completed before every flight. Aside from the amount of crew rest, flight conditions, and recency of experience, one of the factors was flight crew experience. All of the factors were scored 1-4 or 5. I think it was like golf: the lower score is better. If the score was too high, you had to get special approval to conduct the flight. That higher authority had to review the details and sign-off on it. It might seem like a paper chase, but it got another set of eyes on the mission. The point is that the experience level of the crew members was a contributing factor to the level of risk.

 

"No, not yet, Academy in February."

Which speaks volumes...

You'll get it when you make the left seat in a jet and have a 300 hour F/O next to you. I don't expect you to support the "there is no substitute for experience" theory until then.

 

Not to feed fuel to the fire, but I've always wondered what type of "experience" is it that a 5000TT pilot has vs. a 2000TT pilot. For all practical purposes, both pilots have seen and worked the same system. Unless, of course, EVERY 5000TT guy is guaranteed to have experienced an in-flight emergency, whereas a 2000TT guy is guaranteed to have NEVER seen an in-flight emergency.

I think people fixate a LOT on numbers. (e.g. My penis is .5" longer than yours.)

I will however, agree, that there's an ideal place for learning. I think, if anything, the so called "experience" is more of a confidence factor. Those with higher time can confidently make decisions. The truth is, however, that this confidence comes from time in the aircraft itself, IMO, and not so much TT.

 

Ya we had the same form at the flight school I used to teach at. A pretty neat system. THe lower the ceiling and vis, the higher your weather number, the more youve flown that day vs the amount of sleep you had the night before the higher your number. Neat system

 

We're not talking about the difference between 5000TT and 2000TT.

We're talking about 38 hours of multi-engine experience. 38.

In another post 9 hours of multi-engine experience. 9.

9 hours in an apache doing VMC demo's and suddenly we're way qualified to (I can't believe i'm going to use this analogy) be a heartbeat away from command of a 50,000 pound jetliner with 50+ passengers and crew aboard.

Look, bottom line is this. A first officer is not an apprentice sitting to in the right seat waiting to be blessed with any kernels of aviation knowledge the Captain chooses to impart upon them. They are a valued flight crewmember who is there to back-up the Captain and to insure that safety is not compromised. In order to do that job effectively, one has to pull knowledge and experience from their bags of tricks. That experience can come from several places. Sure, it's not ideal if that 2000TT was gained in the traffic pattern in a 172. But if that 2000TT came from a pilot who was a CFI for a bit... maybe a multi-engine instructor who was scared a time or two... maybe that person went on to become a CFII who was scared a time or two....then that person went and flew freight for a few hundred hours and was scared a time or ten.

Those experiences build confidence in ones-self. They also open the eyes of most pilots to look at the operation critically and to learn to use a pilot's most valuable word -- "No". Generally speaking the low-time SJS crowd will go along with whatever the Captain says. Whereas the former freight dog, or CFI, or charter pilot has had at least a FEW runins with the Chief Pilot where he had to say, "No. The airplane is not moving."

I spent 11 years+ in the right seat and if there is one thing that I learned from that experience it is that the right seat is NOT a passenger seat. It is not an observer's seat. It is a crewmember's seat.

Now, I agree with Deadstick. I don't blame the pilots for 9 hour or 38 hour pilots. I blame the FAA for not requiring at LEAST part 135 minimums for an SIC in part 121 -- and I blame the insurance companies for not requiring higher minimums.

If you had a corporate CRJ...Challenger or Global Express, do you think you would be able to insure a copilot with 38 hours of multi-engine time? If you were it would certainly not be cheap! Those of you who are finding offense in this line of discussion need to step back and look at this critically. It is not an attack on you. It is an attack on a system that has degraded to the point that it is now prepostrous. 250 TT and 9 ME? This person has no business in the right seat of a transport category jet -- and it's only a matter of time before that becomes the last link in the chain of errors leading to disaster.

Like I said, i'm a former Bluestreaker so this isn't personal.

 

What does all this have to do with PSA hiring? Which by the way are not as we have 79 on furlough.

 

Sex and Airplanes it's kinda the same thing...

When your 17 and doing Betty you think you are the bomb. 3 min later your happy she's bored.
Then you turn 30 and you look back and think WOW i didn't know crap. If i knew then what i know now....

Same thing with flight experience. You don't know what's it all about till you get some time...

 

Damn. Now THAT is funny!