1500 rule, zero 121 accidents so far
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,883
Off the top of my head, Germanwings which was a suicidal FO, the British 777 at Heathrow that was a fuel-filter clog issue (and they did a great job and everyone lived), the SAS MD80 Linate airport disaster, but the MD80 did nothing wrong and hit a business jet that crossed onto their runway (runway incursion) in hard IMC/low vis. There was a Spanair MD80 that took off with no flaps and crashed.
Meanwhile in America, excluding 9/11 there was the rudder smashing out of JFK, several crashes in IMC during approach (Corporate Air, UPS, etc), a stall crash with Colgan, wrong runway Comair. In comparison, almost every crash in America was a pilot-error type so I'm curious to know what airmanship you claim is somehow better here versus in Europe?
#42
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,923
The "rudder smashing," while pilot induced, occurred within an envelope in which most pilots had been led to believe structural damage would not occur with control deflection. It was, however, an european airplane.
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Retired
Posts: 651
In Europe, under EASA rules the have 250 hour guys in the RH seat of airliners. Their safety record has been good except for the German airline job. They do have 14 written exams for their ATP and I believe they require about 750 hours of study time and a passing grade is a 75.
You can not begin to compare something like Lufthansa's system to the pre-2013 United States practice of throwing fresh commercial tickets from a puppy mill into the right seat of what were too often poorly run, sloppy regional airlines.
#44
That said, I'm not on board with the assertion that airmanship is somehow superior on our side of that Atlantic. But your conclusion that the seemingly higher number of accidents here indicates the 20 year safety record in Europe is superior to the US is flawed.
If you're going to attempt a comparison between US and European airlines safety records, you really need to account for the scale of the operations. Compare apples to apples accounting for daily numbers of flights and I don't think the picture is quite the same as you think.
British Airways, Lufthansa and Air France combined don't operate the same number of aircraft as either Delta or American. Combine the fleets of AA, Delta and United (almost 2600 aircraft) and you have about 3.5 times the number of aircraft (770) operated by those three Euro airlines.
Factor in other smaller Euro airlines like Iberia, Alitalia, Swissair, KLM, etc and they're still eclipsed by the additional 1200+ aircraft operated by SWA, JB, Spirit and Alaska and the 600+ combined aircraft at Fedex and UPS. Compare the operations of US regional carriers with similar operations in Europe and the disparity continues.
Considering the number of daily flight evolutions, it stands to reason that US airline's exposure to potential accidents will be higher just based on pure volume. So, it's hardly a valid comparison to simply list off a lesser number of major accidents involving European airlines during a given period in comparison with the US.
#46
The European 250 hour pilots come into a much more structured, mature airline environment. Their training is also much more selective and intense than what results from Daddy writing checks to a pilot puppy mill.
You can not begin to compare something like Lufthansa's system to the pre-2013 United States practice of throwing fresh commercial tickets from a puppy mill into the right seat of what were too often poorly run, sloppy regional airlines.
You can not begin to compare something like Lufthansa's system to the pre-2013 United States practice of throwing fresh commercial tickets from a puppy mill into the right seat of what were too often poorly run, sloppy regional airlines.
However, there's never going to be a valid substitute for experience. Stick and rudder, hand flying, working the scan over and over, hour after hour building foundational skill sets that stay with you for life. That doesn't happen in 250 hours. I don't care how many tests the guy had to take or how structured the programs was.
The reality of modern airline flying is that it doesn't build those skills. You have to have them before you get there. Once a pilot enters an airline cockpit, he's done laying the skill foundation. He'll learn and continue to develop in related areas like CRM, leadership, company specific operations, international ops, etc. But, he's done becoming any better as a hands on pilot.
Pointing to the safety record of airline X as a supporting statistic for them putting 250 hour ab initios into the right seat of their airliners isn't a testament to that training program. It's more likely a testament to the effectiveness and reliability of the automation in modern airliners. The statistics allow a minimally trained pilot to attain a basic level of competence. He can be further trained in CRM, aircraft systems and maximum use of automation. Chances are that he will rarely, if ever, encounter a situation requiring skills beyond those he has developed. When that does happen, we have a scenario like AF447. But, since such events are so rare, it's easy to claim success (and supposed safety) with low time first officers (and some day Captains) who are little more than well trained autopilot operators.
They stay inside the lines and all is well - that's what these training programs bank on. However, we all know there will always be events that require the knowledge, experience and most importantly the skill to operate outside those lines.
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,099
You left off the most telling of the major European accidents in the last decade, AF 447. It takes a special kind of "child of magenta" and automation cripple to spend their last minutes on the planet with a full aft stick input somehow hoping things are going to improve.
That said, I'm not on board with the assertion that airmanship is somehow superior on our side of that Atlantic. But your conclusion that the seemingly higher number of accidents here indicates the 20 year safety record in Europe is superior to the US is flawed.
If you're going to attempt a comparison between US and European airlines safety records, you really need to account for the scale of the operations. Compare apples to apples accounting for daily numbers of flights and I don't think the picture is quite the same as you think.
British Airways, Lufthansa and Air France combined don't operate the same number of aircraft as either Delta or American. Combine the fleets of AA, Delta and United (almost 2600 aircraft) and you have about 3.5 times the number of aircraft (770) operated by those three Euro airlines.
Factor in other smaller Euro airlines like Iberia, Alitalia, Swissair, KLM, etc and they're still eclipsed by the additional 1200+ aircraft operated by SWA, JB, Spirit and Alaska and the 600+ combined aircraft at Fedex and UPS. Compare the operations of US regional carriers with similar operations in Europe and the disparity continues.
Considering the number of daily flight evolutions, it stands to reason that US airline's exposure to potential accidents will be higher just based on pure volume. So, it's hardly a valid comparison to simply list off a lesser number of major accidents involving European airlines during a given period in comparison with the US.
That said, I'm not on board with the assertion that airmanship is somehow superior on our side of that Atlantic. But your conclusion that the seemingly higher number of accidents here indicates the 20 year safety record in Europe is superior to the US is flawed.
If you're going to attempt a comparison between US and European airlines safety records, you really need to account for the scale of the operations. Compare apples to apples accounting for daily numbers of flights and I don't think the picture is quite the same as you think.
British Airways, Lufthansa and Air France combined don't operate the same number of aircraft as either Delta or American. Combine the fleets of AA, Delta and United (almost 2600 aircraft) and you have about 3.5 times the number of aircraft (770) operated by those three Euro airlines.
Factor in other smaller Euro airlines like Iberia, Alitalia, Swissair, KLM, etc and they're still eclipsed by the additional 1200+ aircraft operated by SWA, JB, Spirit and Alaska and the 600+ combined aircraft at Fedex and UPS. Compare the operations of US regional carriers with similar operations in Europe and the disparity continues.
Considering the number of daily flight evolutions, it stands to reason that US airline's exposure to potential accidents will be higher just based on pure volume. So, it's hardly a valid comparison to simply list off a lesser number of major accidents involving European airlines during a given period in comparison with the US.
#48
If you come in on the right seat, but never are exposed to takeoff and landing, does that experience count?
My dream PIC would be someone who has done a hundred landings and takeoffs from some place Toncontin. I'd pick a PM from someone who was right seat on the first 747 flights. Those were a mess.
My dream PIC would be someone who has done a hundred landings and takeoffs from some place Toncontin. I'd pick a PM from someone who was right seat on the first 747 flights. Those were a mess.
#49
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Position: A320 Left
Posts: 97
It takes a special kind of "child of magenta" and automation cripple to spend their last minutes on the planet with a full aft stick input somehow hoping things are going to improve.
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,099
You are proving his point. Both of those pilots didn't take the time to develop stick and rudder skills before they became megenta line followers, and only that for a few seconds for take off and a few seconds for landing.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post