brianb

I go back to the question I have asked my friends a thousand times. Would you rather have a 3000-5000hr pilot with no degree in the cockpit or a 300hr wonder kid with a sparkling degree from Embry Riddle? I just don't believe 300hrs is enough time or experience for a person to be sitting in the cockpit of a modern jet or turbo-prop aircraft. I, of course, defer to the military and Microsoft desk jockeys. Maybe its just me, but I want as much experience in the front as possible. Rock on brother.

deltabound

I'd prefer to have the most experienced pilot possible, of course. 20,000+ hours, former military test pilot, a space shuttle commander, ALPA president and a resume that includes some things that Col. Paul Tibbets did in his time.

But if the question is, "Can a properly trained 300 hour pilot competently perform the duties of a jet co-pilot?", the answer is an unqualified "YES".

Only in the US do we even have the luxury of having such an overabundance of pilots that this debate is even possible. Many European carriers train their pilots to 300 hours then set them loose on the line, and their safety records are exemplary.

yamahas3

European airlines have extremely thorough and difficult selection processes and training. They pick the cream of the crop and then train and test them to standards vastly beyond those here. In the US, anyone with a big enough bank account can, with the right timing, become an RJ FO. Its not the same.

In Europe you are pairing an experienced captain with an FO who, though short on hours, has extremely high quality training, knowledge, and natural ability. In the US, you are pairing that captain with a seat warmer who sometimes does more harm than good. It is no exaggeration to say that with some of these pilot-mill brand new FOs, the captain's job would be easier than the flight would be safer if they were flying single pilot.

Bring the European way to the US and 300TT might be more ok, but as it stands now, its completely unsafe.

brianb

Finally, some sanity and common sense. You hit a triple. I hate the "homerun" cliche.

deltabound

I agree completely. (Nice rebuttal, BTW. I hate when this place goes all "flightinfo" )

Except for the "completely unsafe" part. It's demonstrably untrue, as the incredibly high safety rates of US carriers (even regionals) proves beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm not saying that ALL 300TT hour pilots in the US are qualified. I think there's are real argument to be said that many 1500TT pilots in the US are severely under qualified as well. Training quality and individual judgment/character skills will always trump a simple logbook number.

I'd also say that the instances of 300TT pilots in the US were always very, very small. Now they're soon to be gone forever with the new legislation working it's way through Congress.

Look, there's a definitive, objective answer to this: Commission a study of all incidents/accidents by US carriers over the past two decades and determine the amount of hours each pilot had when the incident/accident occurred. You could further refine this to show incident/accident rates based on type of training (military or civilian), previous aircraft exposure (jet, turboprop, single/multi, etc.) and so on and so forth. You could find the crew that is statistically most likely to be "dangerous".

Statistics wouldn't lie. The fact that this HASN'T happened suggests that the NTSB (who is tasked to do just this sort of thing) doesn't see it as a relevant or useful line of inquiry.

SrfNFly227

I agree that this study would be beneficial to the safety of our industry, but I would go one step further. I want to see a study that shows how many hours each pilot had when first hired as an FO.

It isn't the 300 hour FO that scares me. It is the CA that was hired as a 300 hour FO.

TPROP4ever

And you think this statistic will show what exactly. we are all entitled to an opinion, but I personaly dont think the captain that hired as a 300 hr FO is the problem either, my opinion its the captain who upgraded at exactly 1501 hours (the capt needs more time in 121). I really think at this point that getting to upgrade the fastest way possible to get the coveted TPIC is where this industry went wrong. Its not the 300 hr FO, or the captain that was a 300 hr FO, but the captain who was a 300 hr FO and upgraded in 16 months. there will always be exceptions to the rule of course. Mabye instead of just 1500 hours for entry the proposal would be better suited to add 3500 min. hours to upgrade. Now you have pilots with much more experiance in 121 before being PIC in an airliner. Isnt more airline experience before PIC better than just more experiance to start. I think we are in the right church but maybe sitting in the wrong Pew. JMO, Im sure some will find fault with this opinion, so here we go....


and for the record, I have no problem staying in 135 until I meet ATP mins to return to 121, and I would have no problem with 5 years before upgrade either, but then again mabye 135 is where I'll stay..

FlyJSH

I think he needs more time flown without an autopilot and signed for more airplanes.

Killer51883

If you need some set amount of time and hours to make you safe then where does the 10 year captain who doesnt give a damn any more about the job and does what ever the heck they want to do fit in. Hours definately has something to do with it as does background knowledge and decision making ability as was previously mentioned. I believe that the most important aspect is to have some one who is actually being profesional and giving their undivided attention/effort/desire to perform at the best of their abilities is what is needed. The thats good enough attitude doesnt belong in an airplane.

Mason32

Actually, NO. More experience making decisions would be better. In our case that comes with more PIC time. That being said, I would take a 300 hour career changer - say from cop to pilot - long before I'd take a 400 hour college kid. One has demonstrated sound decision making ability over time, while the other has not yet developed that skill, and won't develop leadership decision making skills by watching somebody else do it. You do not learn to become a good public speaker just by watching others, although that is a part of it. You don't become a great basketball player solely by watching others... actually, you don't become a good ANYTHING without having had the actual experience doing it.... well, except for whinning that is.... it seems all the unskilled are good at that in every profession.

See, now there is some good decision making on your part; well done.