CNN Video: Safety Rule Could Create Pilot Shortage

I was just commenting to the fact that you said few non-airliners are certified flight into known icing.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
And how many newhire regional pilots do you know who had previous experience in cabin class pistons? And I'm not just talking recently, I'm talking back in the '90s when you had to have 2,000 hours just to be able to PFT at ASA. In reality, few pilots have that experience. Even back then, guys were coming straight from flight instructing for the most part, and had no experience in known icing, little experience in actual instrument conditions, and usually no more than 100-200 hours in multi-engine equipment. There aren't enough piston 135 operators for everyone to work at before coming to the airlines. Expecting that sort of experience before someone can come to the airlines is unrealistic, especially with the coming pilot shortage.
Click to expand...

I think this is the sticking point for me on the new rules. The extra experience being required isn't a bad thing. However, how are the pilots expected to get the RIGHT experience?

I keep thinking back to the training pipeline of our E-6 pilots... I get a brand new, fresh out of training pilot with about 150-200 hours TOPS flying other aircraft and strap them into our heavy to go out on a deployment with 13 other crew members tagging along. But, this is the experience our pilots need. Flying the heavy in actual conditions.

To be honest with you all... Granted I have no experience dealing with commercial ops. However, I think the real problem isn't the lack of hours. It's the lack of understanding what the lack of hours means. When we have a brand new pilot out with us, the 500-600 PIC hour Aircraft Commander is guarding everything he does like a hawk, my 1,000 - 5,000 hour Flight Engineers are trying to avoid being the third person crushed into the tarmac, and if he isn't doing something PERFECT he's gets the instruction he hopefully needs to improve.

Sounds to me like this isn't the way in many of the programs out there for civilian flying. Instead, we're expecting the FO to know exactly what to do, because he should have already experienced everything... Realistically, even the captain may have holes in his experience... More importantly than that, however, is his decision making process when he DOES get into a new situation.
 
block30 said:
Further, I fail to see how, "They had a ton of guys go thru that program, in fact when I worked there I taught about 20 privates alone over the course of the year, and there were 7-10 instructors at any given time." is supporting evidence of anything..
Click to expand...
It debunks your whole argument (as if the other points in this thread didn't already), I'd say that is pretty significant. Roughly 120-180 graduates per year for a decade or more and no increase in accidents that I can remember.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
And how many newhire regional pilots do you know who had previous experience in cabin class pistons? And I'm not just talking recently, I'm talking back in the '90s when you had to have 2,000 hours just to be able to PFT at ASA. In reality, few pilots have that experience. Even back then, guys were coming straight from flight instructing for the most part, and had no experience in known icing, little experience in actual instrument conditions, and usually no more than 100-200 hours in multi-engine equipment. There aren't enough piston 135 operators for everyone to work at before coming to the airlines. Expecting that sort of experience before someone can come to the airlines is unrealistic, especially with the coming pilot shortage.
Click to expand...

Hey....that is why I can live with the structured programmers getting a reduction off the 1500. If certain experiences are guaranteed to be had...great! Hopefully that does not mean watching some power point...I am talking actual flight experience...how the university does that, who knows? Buy a Navajo?
 
wheelsup said:
It debunks your whole argument (as if the other points in this thread didn't already), I'd say that is pretty significant. Roughly 120-180 graduates per year for a decade or more and no increase in accidents that I can remember.
Click to expand...

I am not trying to be a richard towards you, but I still contend your basic argument is not strong.

The last however many accidents had at least 50% of the flight crew who got into pax flying ops unusually quickly.

What your argument contends is that a lack of fatal accidents = safety. And that is not valid.

What we don't have access to are Mesa captains discussing what it is like flying with a low hours FO. We don't have access to the ASAP reports that were filled out by those crews. We don't have access to the near accidents and incidents that were staved off. How have the freight dogs faired in 121 ops? Former military? Former corporate?

From what I have read on the NPRM comments, captains flying with zero to hero FOs were in favor of the new law. My experience causes me to be in favor as well.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Why not? They certainly don't have any trouble buying jets and shoving the poor moon-eyed kids in the right seat for a few pointless "orientation" circuits and bumps.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree, buy a Navajo. EDIT: Boris you gotta know my style now :) ....I was being serious about the Navajo. Get the young'ens at wonder programs some time with an experienced instructor flying in the clag. Not a sarcastic suggestion!!!
 
block30 said:
Hey....that is why I can live with the structured programmers getting a reduction off the 1500. If certain experiences are guaranteed to be had...great! Hopefully that does not mean watching some power point...I am talking actual flight experience...how the university does that, who knows? Buy a Navajo?
Click to expand...
I can see getting a bunch of King Chairs ;)
 
z987k said:
That's how the Asian flight schools do it.
Of course I don't think anyone will ever accuse a Asian flight school of producing a vastly superior product either.
Click to expand...
That's also how the Finns do it. Superior product is superior.
 
I don't like the argument that things must be okay cause there have been few crashes. It's like saying quality ATC service isn't important because TCAS will save you. We should be striving for both pilots and controllers to be as excellent as possible. Not saying "hey, there haven't been any crashes, so everything must be fine".
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Yes, flight crew experience. If you read the findings of fact and the recommendations, you'll find what sort of flight crew experience the NTSB thinks was needed. And it wasn't 1,500 hours as a CFI, either.






Where do you get that? She says actual flight time in icing conditions. Not actual instrument time. Big difference. There aren't too many new airline pilots who have previous experience in icing conditions. Few non-airliners are certified for flight into known icing conditions.



And I think that's a good thing. What I don't think is a good thing is conflating issues, because it destroys credibility, and when you harm your credibility, you make it harder to get things improved for the better. People won't listen to you when you lack credibility. Claiming that PFT is a cause of recent accidents strains credulity to the breaking point. Stick to things that are actually supported by the facts.
Click to expand...

You know if you read the report it says she reported 6 hours actual instrument when she APPLIED to Colgan. I don't think she accrued those six in icing conditions based on the GA aircraft she was flying in previously. And I'm pretty sure there is no logbook column for icing. I think she was speaking with somewhat of a fat tongue (for lack of better term) when she lumped her actual in with icing.
 
I've been reading a lot of valid points in these arguments with these accidents and the ever continuing argument of whether a 500hr pilot is qualified and/or safe to fly even as an FO in a large transport category aircraft.

Though I generally think its not safe, it should also be pointed out that while there have been no or nearly no fatal accidents, there have been some blown brakes, cracked/damaged airframes, close calls because of bad ADM or radio work, etc. etc. due to putting inexperienced pilots that aren't ready in the cockpit...
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Where do you get that? She says actual flight time in icing conditions. Not actual instrument time. Big difference. There aren't too many new airline pilots who have previous experience in icing conditions. Few non-airliners are certified for flight into known icing conditions.
Click to expand...

Um, it time you checked YOUR facts. There are a great many non-airliners (including the overgrown tubine C-172) that are certified or known icing. Almost all pilots who have flown 135 freight have a reasonable amount of time in ice.



And I think that's a good thing. What I don't think is a good thing is conflating issues, because it destroys credibility, and when you harm your credibility, you make it harder to get things improved for the better. People won't listen to you when you lack credibility. Claiming that PFT is a cause of recent accidents strains credulity to the breaking point. Stick to things that are actually supported by the facts.
Click to expand...

PFT and low time pilots alone do not directly cause accidents, nobody seriously claims that it does.

PFT operators do produce a higher percentage of marginal pilots, because they never see the variety of flying that builds airmanship. I don't mean to insult you Todd, but based on your posts here I think you yourself are an example of this. You are an expert in your narrow segment of aviation (121 jet flying) but are woefully ignorant about many other parts of this industry.

Marginal pilots in the cockpit (even in the right seat) reduce the safety margin in many subtle ways that have contributed to accidents and other incidents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top