j1b3h0

I just read 15 pages of pontificating about the 1500 hour/ATP FAR and whether or not it matters. As Captains, would anyone care to cite examples of exactly how inexperience reveals itself on the line? Myself, an unabashed proponent of higher minimums and an ATP, if, for no other reason than consistency: FAR 135.243 requires 1200 hrs to fly a piston twin full of mail bags as a PIC. Doesn't it stand to reason that to occupy an airliner cockpit would require at least that?
So, please share with us your anecdotal evidence of why inexperienced crew members compromise safety.

xjcaptain

Let's see...Poor instrument skills, poor communication skills (within cockpit and with ATC), poor airmanship (smooth seems to be unobtainable), low situational awareness, no weather experience...All of these issues turn the flight into pure instruction. For true CRM and safety at it's highest level both members need to be truly contributing to the flight. In order to contribute you need to bring something to the table. That something is called experience. Everybody is always learning on every flight, but the foundation needs to be there. An airliner is not an entry level cockpit. Some do O.K. with lower experience but any captain would rather have an experienced FO. The low time pilots will not realize how much a lack of experience in the right seat is a detriment to the flight. They will never know it until they are in the left seat babysitting a low time pilot. People may not like to hear it but experience does matter. An ATP is a good place to START as a MINIMUM qualification to be employed as an airline pilot.

skyxbomb

Don't we already have a thread on this?

CriticalMach

Really? What good is an airline training then? How many accidents do you hear among countries that actually take pilots with 250 TT i.e. South America, Europe, South East Asia?

Just a reminder, Marvin Renslow had 3,379 hours & Rebecca Shaw had 2,200. Those numbers do not speak inexperience, do they?

mtjoe1900

I agree with CriticalMach, Lufthansa pilots start in the 320 or 737 with less then 200 hours.

JustAnotherPLT

I couldn't agree more. You name me any airline accident that was related to a low time pilot. The above mentioned had BOTH pilots above ATP minimums. Boring topic, NEXT!

screwdriver

True experience does not come from 1500 hrs punching aimless holes in the sky teaching someone how to do shorts and softs. While this can be good to the overall quality it should be in the hands of the airlines to not release these guys to the line while they are still holding onto the tail of the airplane. 8 sim sessions to teach someone the 121 world and a complex fast aircraft is where the problem really lies. Confidence in ones own ability is something that I rarely see in guys right out of the schoolhouse regardless of total time.

FlyPurdue

Until a US carrier sponsors only the best and brightest prospective pilots, trains these pilots to military standards while following strict standards and procedures from day one, comparing an American 250 hour pilot and a Lufthansa 250 hour pilot is futile.

PS, I am a huge fan of airline sponsored flight training, it preserves pilot supply, demand, and wages. These pilots fly a Lufthansa Cheyenne 4, with A300 avionics, to introduce multi crew, turbine, and weather flying before beginning type specific training. IMHO - this is the only condition to put a 250 hour pilot in an airline flight deck. Until this happens - ATP for all crew members.

Cheers!

Kenny

There's a few things that need to be considered though, with that statement.

Firstly, they'll have more than 200 hours. Not a lot more, but around 250-280 as that's what's required for an LBA(German) CPL.

Secondly, the LH cadets are the cream of the crop. Certainly some of the smartest and most able students I ever had the privilege to teach.

Thirdly, when they get back to Germany, their Type training is about 80 hours in the sim, before they get near an aircraft. Then line training takes a couple of months with a Training Captain, before they're let loose on the line.

In the US, because time is money, we cram them through as fast as possible and you either make it or you don't. Which means you have to have more experience and maturity, to survive.

rickair7777

US military pilots do not have much more experience when they become operational, but in both cases...

1) Demand is high for the jobs, so they can be very picky. A rich dad and a 2.8 HS GPA is a non-starter.

2) The training is challenging and unforgiving. You cannot buy remedial training.

3) Neither US military nor foreign airline pilots mix it up with general aviation much. The mil guys usually have their own airspace where the other aircraft are predictable (to them). Military pilots also die on a regular basis too. Foreign pilots flying in their own country have almost no GA, and if they get on a widebody and come here they will do a straight-in ILS in B airspace. A US regional or narrowbody pilot benefits from have part 91 survival skills and instincts.

1500 hours is by no means the best solution, but it is better than nothing. It doesn't address academics, but it does ensure that we don't have private pilots flying airliners. Cuz face it a 250 hour CPL is just a PPL who can do chandelles. 1500 hours is more experience and (hopefully) judgement. I would like to see more stringent academic testing at the entry level. Select people who actually understand some aerodynamics as opposed to just memorizing the question bank. But the RAA will NEVER, EVER allow that...if they have to compete for people who could go to med or engineering school, they would be hosed.