During the time of most of these accidents, pilots with less than ATP minimums wouldn't be allowed anywhere near a 121 flight deck. Since low time pilots have started flying the same type equipment as the experienced pilots, what does the record show? I haven't looked it up, but I don't think I have to, as the answer is obvious.

The data set you reference is totally inaccurate. It neglects many commercial aviation accidents (just for an example, Comair's accident history: flight 444 in 1979 and flight 3272 in 1997 are missing). It also isn't all 'accidents', and includes some of the greatest feats of airmanship around. See 1982, where BA flight 9 lost all 4 engines in an encounter with volcanic ash or KLM 867, same thing, all engines lost due to volcanic ash. I know of 4 other instances of all engines lost in flight in recent history, AirTransat (A330 over the Atlantic), Pinnacle ('the 410 club'), British Airways (777 in LHR) and US Airways (miracle on the Hudson). No deaths in any of the flights flown by pilots with high time, no survivors in the RJ flight (can anyone name a single 'regional' flight where the crew successfully landed after all engines lost, or any other time this occurred other than Pinnacle?). There was also a TACA crew that dead-sticked a 737 onto a levee! Plenty of other instances of high time pilots making incredible feats of airmanship, the most glaring example being United 232 in Sioux City. Plenty of examples of great composure under stress too. Would a pilot with low experience but high 'quality of hours' (who determines THAT metric?) make a PA after the loss of all engines by saying "Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your Captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get it under control. I trust you are not in too much distress."? Honestly, I doubt it, and perhaps that's the difference experience makes.

Don't underestimate all the preventative measures now put into place b/c of these accidents, measures that now require such things as automated T/O configuration checks, more positive control by ATC of aircraft on runways, automated windshear detection, more reliable engine technology, and volcanic activity forecasting and avoidance. Despite all of this, airplanes continue to crash. In the US, measuring 'apples to apples' (a time period where both experienced and inexperienced US jet pilots are operating in US airspace), the vast majority of aviation deaths are attributed to airlines with low-time pilot forces, even though they are often flying more advanced and redundant equipment than their more experienced counterparts, not to mention the experienced crews are operating the majority of flights, yet still accounting for a far lower % of accidents and fatalities.

There's no substitute for experience, and the record supports this.

 

You asked, how can one get hours, and I answered how I got hours. Your reply, "I did it this way so you should too". I never said you must do it the way I did it, but I did offer one way. If it isnt good enough, fast enough, or easy enough, so be it: go find your own way. If my method was not good enough for you, feel free to find your own path.

I will agree that poor mx is a reason for avoiding a job (or violation of FARs), but other than that a crappy job beats no job at all.

True, if one has 100 hours or 10,000 hours, he is still learning. The question is WHAT is he learing. Is he learning the subtleties of flying a transport catagory aircraft, or is he learning basic instrument skills?


Imagine this: Tomarrow your chief pilot comes to you and says, "We need another CA and you are next in line." Would you take it? Sure you would (you admitted that you took the opportunity to fly a regional airline vs a CFI job, you took the regional). So there you are, a fresh CA in a new base (maybe on a new aircraft) with a FO fresh off of IOE. The wx is crap. Would you rather have someone who has a few hundred hours flying a 310 single pilot or a 300 hour "just got my commercial AMEL"?


No, hours alone doesn't describe the quality of a pilot, but higher hours does typically mean a broader background. There is no one way to measure a pilot's ability, but if all I had to look at a resume, seeing some CFI time and some 135 time would put that applicant on my list of interviews.

 

I have the JAA certificates as well as FAA. Got the JAA ones first, in Switzerland. Yeah, the written tests are harder and could be considered very in depth. But having made it through I have to also say that those who didn't maybe shouldn't have the jobs. It's another filter and if you study hard and are diligent you will pass.

The steps to becoming an airline pilot shouldn't be easy. And the US/FAA written exams are considered a joke in the rest of the world.

That said, the flying part is not a joke. I converted my JAA to FAA certificates in 2003 and had to take a Comm/ME and the IFR/ME checkrides and they were not easy.

So I am not just bashing US aviation at all. But I wouldn't mind seeing the written exams more thorough than they are.

 

Just for the record, the BA flight into LHR was handled by the first officer who was probably hired like most BA first officers are hired - with 200 hrs straight onto a 737 or A320 or maybe even a 757. Dangerous? No

Make the Commerical licence more difficult in line with the rest of the world, not just Europe (Try Australia!) intead of giving it away and hoping they learn something with a CFI ticket.

Maybe the FAA ATP should contain 12000 questions with 5% new questions each month to stop rote memory passing exams. Then the flight test could be close to 3 hrs too. That might weed a few out.

 

And while a good idea, the FAA will never spend the money that will take, the Taxpayers wont allow it...we are our own worst enemies. The public doesnt want higher fares, and they also gripe if taxes are raised to fund critical institutions.

An example for you :they need to update the whole data base of questions, has anyone under 60 ever used a prognostic chart . We have much better information available to us with computers these days but all weather questions are based off of 1960's technology...ought to give you some idea about how antiquated the FAA data base is, no wonder there are books out there with every question in them.

 

for the record if I was offered an upgrade or a pic position in the airplane I fly now or any other 121 airplane for that matter, I would decline it. That's one of the many reasons I declined my interview at MESa a couple years back. I was hearing that they were upgrading guys at 1500 hrs and throwing em to the wolves. I'd rather sit over in the right seat and get a little more experience under my belt( go through a few more icy winters and stormy summers) before all the responsibilty was on my shoulders, and my ceftificates, my career, and most importantly people's lives are on the line.

 

So clearly, you see what we're trying to tell you... I mean, you seem to be.

I do think that if you had some PIC background, if you had flown boxes in that Baron for a year or two, if you did the Part 135 thing, you wouldn't be running from upgrade, but rather you'd be looking forward to it.

 

Flyer,

The crux of PIC is not only making decisions but, also being responsible for them. The more hours, or more missions, you have - the greater the opportunity to make those decisions.

There are many ways to do this...

 

Agreed....that is what I was hinting at. Valid PIC time is NOT only acquired in a P121 cockpit.
I don't fit this definition but I promise that I have PIC time

I agree with you about being responsible for those decisions as evidenced by my statement:
USMCFLYR

 

Alright yougin, it wasn't a dim light for me when I started and mins for the likes of Comair was 2000 hours and competitive mins were 3000.....and that was on the low end of the scale.

Yes, this is still a great idea....hell. raise the mins to 2000 for 121/135.