Aptitude, Training, Experience

seaav8tor

New Member
What a surprise. They are going to "FIX" pilot training.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124454581000197621.html

They will never get it.

Aptitude, Training, Experience….. in that order.

All three are needed to be a SAFE, SEASONED, pilot. Sadly the tragedy of 3407 will be repeated because in the aviation world the aptitude of the individual is not evaluated. Experience (according to Roger Cohen) does not matter.

Civilian pilot qualification considerations focuses far too much on training. When an accident occurs…. more training. No one ever stops to ask: “Should this individual be flying a commercial airliner? Does this person have enough experience?” The answer is always, fix the training. Add more training.

News flash: The training is fine. It doesn’t need to be fixed. The pilots need to be evaluated for aptitude and experience level.

Clear now?
 
I agree. Those three words mostly do sum up what should be involved for someone to make it to the cockpit of a 121 or 135 operation.
 
Thats the FAA, they will do the right thing, even when no one is looking. I wonder if there is a correlation between a better schedule/duty day at a major carrier vs. a regional carrier. Sure there is a difference in experience. Again, just my $.02
 
Aptitude, Training, Experience....

I AGREE!

Sorry "Dude..." But if math is "not your thing," than maybe you don't belong in a cockpit....
 
/shrug

I don't think its going to cause any real problems. I doubt they'd implement anything that would cost their friends at the airlines a penny more.

And really, the worst thing they would likely do is have more examiners sit in on PCs. Not exactly earth shattering.
 
The military has done this for years. You have to take multiple batteries of aptitude tests before you get near an airplane.

...the little problem for the airlines is that if they implement more thorough screening of applicants and disqualify those who "aren't quite with it", there won't as many people willing to work for pennies on the dollar, and the quality of applicants they attract will be able to command higher salaries. Imagine that....
 
The military has done this for years. You have to take multiple batteries of aptitude tests before you get near an airplane.

...the little problem for the airlines is that if they implement more thorough screening of applicants and disqualify those who "aren't quite with it", there won't as many people willing to work for pennies on the dollar, and the quality of applicants they attract will be able to command higher salaries. Imagine that....


Ding, Ding, Ding..... We have a winner!

Now if the FAA, RAA, ATA, AIRCON, ALPA, ICAO, IATA, etc would visualize the airplanes touching down safely vs a smoking hole with burnt human flesh stench smoldering out we would all be in agreement the higher cost would be economically justified. Something the families of the deceased already know.
 
The military has done this for years. You have to take multiple batteries of aptitude tests before you get near an airplane.

...the little problem for the airlines is that if they implement more thorough screening of applicants and disqualify those who "aren't quite with it", there won't as many people willing to work for pennies on the dollar, and the quality of applicants they attract will be able to command higher salaries. Imagine that....

There are airlines in other parts of the world that still administer heavy aptitude tests and psychological evaluations (lufthansa, cathay, netjets...to name a few). I know here in the states that still occurs but not enough, especially at the regional level, in my opinion.

You are spot on with the salaries. No self respecting surgeon would work for scheise wages now, would they? Why should "professional" pilots be any different? :confused:
 
Pay aside, aptitude tests aren't going to stop accidents from happening. The military is proof of this. Besides, what is an aptitude test supposed to show? Do you do some tests for a guy flying Barons/Caravans/Falcons/Lears around flying freight? Do you only do it for passenger flying? Should you stop people from getting a pvt. license to begin with if said person doesn't measure up with?
Thinking of the major regional crashes of the last few years, anyone care to guess what they have in common...?...Gulfstream.
 
Pay aside, aptitude tests aren't going to stop accidents from happening. The military is proof of this. Besides, what is an aptitude test supposed to show? Do you do some tests for a guy flying Barons/Caravans/Falcons/Lears around flying freight? Do you only do it for passenger flying? Should you stop people from getting a pvt. license to begin with if said person doesn't measure up with?
Thinking of the major regional crashes of the last few years, anyone care to guess what they have in common...?...Gulfstream.

I don't think the point of mentioning aptitude was to suggest that those who past the test are immune to crashing. Rather its to keep those that don't have what it takes out of the cockpit in the first place. If you have enough money to throw at it, most people can become commercially licensed pilot. As an instructor I've seen it out of a few of my students. Some were young at heart and weren't mature enough to straighten up when flying an airplane. That can be fixed with time. Another student I had just doesn't have what it takes. I got him his instrument rating but wish I had told him no. There is nothing in the civilian training world for screening unless the individual school decides to do it. I'm confident this student wouldn't pass an aptitude test. It would have been disappointing, but money saved on his part. Had I know what I do now about the Colgan crash, I would have told him flying wasn't for him.
 
Had I know what I do now about the Colgan crash, I would have told him flying wasn't for him.

What does the Colgan crash have to do with a marginal instrument student?
I know a guy that knows the book in and out, can fly approaches all day long but for the life of him can't fly freight.
Will a test weed him out? No.
I'm not a great test taker, but I'm a helluva pilot. Me not passing some standardized test makes me not worthy?
These are questions that have to be answered.
 
Aptitude, Training, Experience....

I AGREE!

Sorry "Dude..." But if math is "not your thing," than maybe you don't belong in a cockpit....

Math ain't my thing, and I've never crashed an airplane.

Physics on the other hand, is my thing, and a basic understand of it has helped me very much over the years.
 
Pay aside, aptitude tests aren't going to stop accidents from happening. The military is proof of this.

You haven't heard? Military pilots don't have accidents unless it's a very unusual situation. Only GA and airline pilots make mistakes and have accidents.
 
Military has no choice but to accept pilots with no experience for the flying they do. No matter what the salary there is no source market of labor with high performance fighter jet experience.

So they:

-Screen for aptitude
-Train (millions per pilot)
-Send the pilot out to fly an ejection seat aircraft with no experience. (some crash and die) The ones that live become experienced.


The pilot mills:

-Screen for money
-Train (a tiny fraction of what the military spends)
-Send the pilot out to fly part 121 with no experience. (some crash and die with fare paying passengers aboard) The ones that live become experienced.


In both cases you can end up with an experienced pilot. At that point I would not argue one is better than the other they just took different paths to get there.

The airlines DO have a choice. Experienced pilots are available but the industry is unwilling to pay enough to ATTRACT & RETAIN them.
 
You don't need any difficult math to fly an airplane.

Military flying is nothing like civilian flying. You can't compare the accident rates of the two and come up with any meaningful comparison of pilot skill.
 
You don't need any difficult math to fly an airplane.

Military flying is nothing like civilian flying. You can't compare the accident rates of the two and come up with any meaningful comparison of pilot skill.

Aptitude testing for aptitude specific to the job. No one said differential equations.

I taught in the T-37 as an Air Force Instructor Pilot. The departure training we taught (spins) was a very meaningful comparison to what Marvin demonstrated on flight 3407.
 
Aptitude testing for aptitude specific to the job. No one said differential equations.

I taught in the T-37 as an Air Force Instructor Pilot. The departure training we taught (spins) was a very meaningful comparison to what Marvin demonstrated on flight 3407.
There must be alot of risky things you did that aren't done in commercial flying like formation flying, aerobatics, flying in any weather. I would think those things alone would mean comparing accident rates between civilian and military operators is not meaningful.
 
You're all wrong! Aptitude, training and experience are ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS.

The MOST critically important and useful parameter to evaluate a potential aviator is whether or not he/she wears corrective lenses at the start of flight training. :sarcasm:

But I'm not bitter...:banghead:
 
Back
Top