This is the real travesty.

I personally think very highly of the work the NTSB does, and its a true shame that they have ZERO authority on matters of safety regulation. Its all 'recommendations' to which some politician decides whether or not to follow.

 

There are a few post on this thread that imply the airlines will try to hire more experienced pilots when they can. The idea is that it is a buyers market and the airlines will prefer to hire a more experienced pilot over a less experienced pilot. I do not believe this is the case.

I believe that Colgan and Mesaba were selecting low experience pilots in the latter part of last year over more experienced pilots. And you can't blame them. Why would they want to hire a furloughed mainline or other who will jump ship as soon as the job market opens back up. Unfortunately, a situation like 3704 may be just a cost of doing business. Of course, nobody will admit this. I believe it is possible that Colgan passed over more qualified candidates when selecting the FO that was on 3704. How could that have changed the outcome?

I don't know what the answer is. If airlines are now voluntarily increasing their mins, it may be because their secret is getting out and they need to get away from the former practice of intentionally hiring pilots on the lower side of the experience scale. How would the public feel if they new that airlines intentionally select less experienced pilots to save on recruiting and training cost related to turnover from more experienced pilots?

 

lol....best post on this thread.

 

So, my last post stated two ideas with absolutely no evidence:

1. There is a direct correlation between experience and safety.
2. Some airlines have intentionally selected less experienced pilots when they could have hired more experienced pilot for reasons related to profits.

If these two statements are true, that leads to a third statement that "some airlines have intentionally increased risks for the sake of profit.

There have been many comments here about the incentive for the companies to address this issue. Also speculation about the ability of the government to make some changes. I think there is a third, more likely, player. The insurance companies. In many cases, the insurance companies are the most likely change agent.

 

How do they feel now? This is exactly what IS going on.

Why would a regional airline hire a 10,000 hour pilot over a 1,000 hour pilot? Sure they may cost the same.....but do they? The 10,000 hour pilot has many more opportunities available to him/her and is a more risky investment. In an economy like this, the risk is less because the opportunities are less. But on the up swing, these high timers are going to be the first to leave, while the comparatively low timers are still salivating over the fact that they have a job. They will stick around much longer to await upgrade, etc.

An example: Take the decision to buy one of two possible vehicles for $20,000. Both can do the same job and have the same reliability. One, however, has a better trim package, leather seats, etc. The other is a basic model. However, the basic model has a 10 year warranty and the other has a 3 year warranty. From a cost management perspective, if YOU weren't going to drive the car yourself, but were merely looking for a vehicle to move employees from point A to point B - which would you choose? Which has a lower cost of ownership? Which would your stockholders (who want maximum ROI) want you to choose?

Pilots are pawns on the companies chessboard in more ways than you think.

 

I think you missed the point of the thread, the idea is that with a 'wing and a prayer' congress will grow a pair and force a few changes starting with certification and minimum requirements to work at a 121 carrier.

This isn't about the airlines, if it was up to them the planes would be certified for single pilot ops!!!

 

Does anyone actually know how many (or what percentage) of new hires had less then 1500 hours? Less than 1000 hours? Yes there were absolutely people hired with less than 500 hours but in my opinion these were an extremely small minority.

And considering the overall safety record for the past few years and considering the fact that even the lowest time newhires probably have ATP min hours by now, I'd say the airlines' gamble paid off.

Don't forget that all the newhires had to get through training. Granted training demands can vary greatly, but ultimately the FAA signs off on each training program. The weakest pilots were weeded out then or during the probation rides.

There are plenty of people willing to work for the salaries paid by the airlines right now. If the FAA mandates higher minimums then all that will happen is programs like GIA or ATP will develop pay-for-training deals- only $99,000 0 hrs-ATP!!!!

Part of the responsibilty is with potential newhires. It is up to you to decide who you are going to work for. I was always taught that you want to work for the best company you possibly can. Not the fastest upgrade, not the shiniest biggest airplane, etc. Maybe that requires some waiting until you meet the minimums there. If you work for a crappy airline you should expect crappy QOL, pay, furlough, etc. Don't whine about it.

The other part of the responsibilty is on passengers. You get what you pay for. If you want the cheapest ticket then you will get the lowest bidding airline. Until people figure this out and change their behavior airlines will keep trying to cut costs (and corners) to stay competitive.

 

Both pilots on Colgan had ATP minimums or greater and both passed their rides and were properly credentialed to be there. Where do you draw the line? The Comair crash, both pilots had several thousand hours if I recall. The 747 collision in the Canaries, the Concord accident, the Continental DEN runway overrun, the Air Florida icing accident. Again, where do you draw the line?

I have yet to see a way to draw a relationship between anything quantitative (hard facts) on crew experience vs. crash occurrences. Those Air France pilots both had a slew of experience I am sure.

I am afraid we are chasing rainbows to make ourselves feel better and hope that the competition will become less through an act of congress. Won't happen. Fatigue might be addressed, training programs might be changed to implement similar situations, etc. But the low time guys will still be hired because there doesn't appear to be a direct track record between lack of experience and crashes.

That being said, perhaps my last post makes more sense now.

 

Wow, so you missed the Colgan hearings altogether didn't you? I recommend you read or download the transcripts all the quantitative evidence you need.

 

Bravo.....The first rational post on this issue. So tired of the raise the minimums argument. Even though I meet them .... Plenty of high timers crashes on record. Show me data on low timers vs high timers crashes comparatively.........No correlation.