I am tired of...
- Thread starter bike21
- Start date
CapnJim
Well-Known Member
I ran into this same issue when I was a newbie. Thing is, everyone has thier opinion, and it's a lot easier to just say "I have more experience, therefore that makes me right."
No, it dosen't.
If you have an opinion, you have to back it up with logically consistent arguments, or you don't have anything at all. Of course, this takes time, effort, and no small input of mental activity, and for some folks that's just too much to ask, so they have to lean on something else.
Of course, this kind of thing is as old as knowledge itself. We need the newer people challenging and testing our assumtions, or we stagnate. There's been plenty of times I was flat dead wrong about things in here, and I had to swallow my pride, man up, and say "Oops. You're right. My bad." But then, there's been plenty of other times when I had to say "No way Jose. You're wrong. Here's why..."
So if you have an opinon, great! But back it up with something, and think it through before you throw it out there. It's pretty bad if you're a new guy shooting off at the mouth when it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about, but if you've been around the block a few times and are still shooting off with nothing to back it up but your preconcieved 'status', well, that's even worse.
There's just as many old fools as young fools. Try not to be either.
No, it dosen't.
If you have an opinion, you have to back it up with logically consistent arguments, or you don't have anything at all. Of course, this takes time, effort, and no small input of mental activity, and for some folks that's just too much to ask, so they have to lean on something else.
Of course, this kind of thing is as old as knowledge itself. We need the newer people challenging and testing our assumtions, or we stagnate. There's been plenty of times I was flat dead wrong about things in here, and I had to swallow my pride, man up, and say "Oops. You're right. My bad." But then, there's been plenty of other times when I had to say "No way Jose. You're wrong. Here's why..."
So if you have an opinon, great! But back it up with something, and think it through before you throw it out there. It's pretty bad if you're a new guy shooting off at the mouth when it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about, but if you've been around the block a few times and are still shooting off with nothing to back it up but your preconcieved 'status', well, that's even worse.
There's just as many old fools as young fools. Try not to be either.
Airdale
Well-Known Member
Most of you that have followed my posts, you know that I rarely get into arguements on here, and I always have a great respect for everyone on the boards, and more importantly, those that have more experience then I do. This might be a bit long, but bear with me because its something I really need to get off my chest.
One thing that really irritates me to death - is the broad statement "low time" or "low timers" and "low timers shouldn't be in the cockpit of a 121 aircraft".
I never argue or hold my ground about low timers, but I have stated a few times how I feel. The reason why the "low timer" statement bothers me, is because I am low time. Before I started my IOE here, I had 465TT and 310 multi. The reason it bothers me so much though, is that sometimes it makes me feel like I don't belong where I am right now. And to be truthfully honest, I have worked my a$$ off to get here.
I struggled after high school after loosing a best friend and the one person I shared an aviation passion with - my grandfather. I spent 2 years turning wrenches on cars before I decided to change my life and get back to pursuing my dream of becoming an airline pilot. I joined the military on a whim, didn't even think twice. Signed the papers in 10 minutes. I spent 4 years in the military - growing, maturing, taking responsibility, being a good follower, being a leader, being part of a team, being an instructor, an authority figure etc. and the list goes on. I earned an achievement medal for performance on a rescue mission, I earned a Good Conduct medal and at least 3 page 7's every mark period. I had one of the sharpest uniforms for an engineer, and I held my subordinates to the same standard.
I went into the military to grow up. To learn. To get on a path that would make me the best pilot I could be.
After the military I went to ATP. Why? Because I was ready to fly and fly my tail off everyday all year. I was finally *ready* to move on with my passion. I did my time, I served my country, I grew up and matured. Now I wanted to do something for me. I studied harder then anyone. I read every aviation book I could find. I passed almost every written with a 90% and above. I didn't fail a checkride, I had a 98% pass rate as an instructor.
For me, my journey started in 2001, when I joined the Coast Guard. Even though I wasn't a pilot, the experience I was gaining, the rate at which I was maturing, was a perfect match, in my opinion, for this career.
I scored an 88% on my indoc test and a 99% on my Beech systems test. I studied until 2am every night. I took countless pages of notes. I hand drew systems diagrams until I had them memorized. I had 3 books of index cards. And this was just for a Beech 1900. I passed my sim check with not a single train to proficiency. I was hanging on the tail my first day of IOE, sure. Everyone has too when you transition to a faster aircraft. But today, I actually felt like a valuable member of the cockpit. My radio calls were fast, sharp and professional and my landings improved greatly. My Captain and I were on the same page and things are coming along great. I still have some things to work on tomorrow, but thats the point - I work.
I'm not a super pilot - I'm not a super being - and I'm not a genius. But the one thing I am - is passionate about flying. I love it. My grandfather loved it, he passed that on to me and ever since that day in 2001 that I signed those papers, I made a pact to work as hard as I can possibly work to accomplish my dream.
I know there are cocky 200hr pilots out there, 20 yrs old and think they have the world by the nads. I know. I instructed a few of them, I've met a few of them. You just have to laugh. Someday, they will grow up and see the big picture.
To me, when I hear people say things like "low time guys shouldn't be there", "low time guys are dangerous" etc., it really makes me think I shouldn't be where I am. But then I turn the computer off, hop in that airplane and realize how hard I've worked and the path I've taken to get there - and then I get down to business. I know for a fact that when I hit 1000hrs, sure I'll be a much better pilot, I'll have more experience. I'm not niave to the fact that at my flight times, yeah I may lack experience that others don't. But I also have experience in area's that others don't.
If you've read this far - thanks. End rant.
One thing that really irritates me to death - is the broad statement "low time" or "low timers" and "low timers shouldn't be in the cockpit of a 121 aircraft".
I never argue or hold my ground about low timers, but I have stated a few times how I feel. The reason why the "low timer" statement bothers me, is because I am low time. Before I started my IOE here, I had 465TT and 310 multi. The reason it bothers me so much though, is that sometimes it makes me feel like I don't belong where I am right now. And to be truthfully honest, I have worked my a$$ off to get here.
I struggled after high school after loosing a best friend and the one person I shared an aviation passion with - my grandfather. I spent 2 years turning wrenches on cars before I decided to change my life and get back to pursuing my dream of becoming an airline pilot. I joined the military on a whim, didn't even think twice. Signed the papers in 10 minutes. I spent 4 years in the military - growing, maturing, taking responsibility, being a good follower, being a leader, being part of a team, being an instructor, an authority figure etc. and the list goes on. I earned an achievement medal for performance on a rescue mission, I earned a Good Conduct medal and at least 3 page 7's every mark period. I had one of the sharpest uniforms for an engineer, and I held my subordinates to the same standard.
I went into the military to grow up. To learn. To get on a path that would make me the best pilot I could be.
After the military I went to ATP. Why? Because I was ready to fly and fly my tail off everyday all year. I was finally *ready* to move on with my passion. I did my time, I served my country, I grew up and matured. Now I wanted to do something for me. I studied harder then anyone. I read every aviation book I could find. I passed almost every written with a 90% and above. I didn't fail a checkride, I had a 98% pass rate as an instructor.
For me, my journey started in 2001, when I joined the Coast Guard. Even though I wasn't a pilot, the experience I was gaining, the rate at which I was maturing, was a perfect match, in my opinion, for this career.
I scored an 88% on my indoc test and a 99% on my Beech systems test. I studied until 2am every night. I took countless pages of notes. I hand drew systems diagrams until I had them memorized. I had 3 books of index cards. And this was just for a Beech 1900. I passed my sim check with not a single train to proficiency. I was hanging on the tail my first day of IOE, sure. Everyone has too when you transition to a faster aircraft. But today, I actually felt like a valuable member of the cockpit. My radio calls were fast, sharp and professional and my landings improved greatly. My Captain and I were on the same page and things are coming along great. I still have some things to work on tomorrow, but thats the point - I work.
I'm not a super pilot - I'm not a super being - and I'm not a genius. But the one thing I am - is passionate about flying. I love it. My grandfather loved it, he passed that on to me and ever since that day in 2001 that I signed those papers, I made a pact to work as hard as I can possibly work to accomplish my dream.
I know there are cocky 200hr pilots out there, 20 yrs old and think they have the world by the nads. I know. I instructed a few of them, I've met a few of them. You just have to laugh. Someday, they will grow up and see the big picture.
To me, when I hear people say things like "low time guys shouldn't be there", "low time guys are dangerous" etc., it really makes me think I shouldn't be where I am. But then I turn the computer off, hop in that airplane and realize how hard I've worked and the path I've taken to get there - and then I get down to business. I know for a fact that when I hit 1000hrs, sure I'll be a much better pilot, I'll have more experience. I'm not niave to the fact that at my flight times, yeah I may lack experience that others don't. But I also have experience in area's that others don't.
If you've read this far - thanks. End rant.
Airdale
Well-Known Member
Thats why I just keep my mouth shut and fly.
CapnJim
Well-Known Member
Nope. That was in the 70's. I compiled NTSB reports from around the start of low-time hiring (500/100, 600/200, etc.) for major an regional airlines, and compared the rate of accidents and incidents for each, corrected for a variety of factors incluting volume of flights and international operations, and guess what? The numbers showed that the majors were having a significantly higher number of bent metal and hurt people that the regionals were. Surely, if the low-timers were so 'inherently unsafe' as 'common sense' would dictate, then that would translate in to some quantifiable proof. Nuh-uh. The quantifiable, verigiable fact is that the reginonal low-timers are doing well, and the matrix by which people have been judging pilots has more to do with perception and psycological reinforcement than it does to do with reality.
There are people who steadfastly believe that there is a continual linear relationship between flight time and competency. It's a myth. The line rises sharply for a while, levels off, rises again, regresses, and then becomes completely random. That's because the relationship between total time and competency is only effective for a limited amount of time, and there is a point reached where a persons Total Time is insignificant compared to a number of other factors, including intelligence, natural aptitude, self-study, recall capacity, motor skill, and age.
Of course, it's easy to point at a singular 250 hour FO just off IOE and flying the line for the first week and say "Look! He's a shambles! Case closed!" But that is spurious reasoning. I started in the airline environment with 1500 TT and 500 ME and I was a hairball the first few months too, as was everyone else in my class save one guy. He was the star of the class, aced all the exams, nailed all the FTD's and Sims, and was sent to the line with flying colors after the absolute minimum of IOE. His total time when hired? 600/100.
So the answer is neither "Experience is unrelated to competency" or "Experience and competency are immutable". The answer is that although experience is a contributing factor to competency, it is only the star player for a limited amount of time. There are a mutitude of factors applicable (and measurable) in each individual, and if we are to be consistent in our desire to have safe, professional, and competent pilots we are best served by examining all those factors, and not just the one whose time had come back in the days of the Laffyette Escradrille.
There are people who steadfastly believe that there is a continual linear relationship between flight time and competency. It's a myth. The line rises sharply for a while, levels off, rises again, regresses, and then becomes completely random. That's because the relationship between total time and competency is only effective for a limited amount of time, and there is a point reached where a persons Total Time is insignificant compared to a number of other factors, including intelligence, natural aptitude, self-study, recall capacity, motor skill, and age.
Of course, it's easy to point at a singular 250 hour FO just off IOE and flying the line for the first week and say "Look! He's a shambles! Case closed!" But that is spurious reasoning. I started in the airline environment with 1500 TT and 500 ME and I was a hairball the first few months too, as was everyone else in my class save one guy. He was the star of the class, aced all the exams, nailed all the FTD's and Sims, and was sent to the line with flying colors after the absolute minimum of IOE. His total time when hired? 600/100.
So the answer is neither "Experience is unrelated to competency" or "Experience and competency are immutable". The answer is that although experience is a contributing factor to competency, it is only the star player for a limited amount of time. There are a mutitude of factors applicable (and measurable) in each individual, and if we are to be consistent in our desire to have safe, professional, and competent pilots we are best served by examining all those factors, and not just the one whose time had come back in the days of the Laffyette Escradrille.
Airdale
Well-Known Member
staplegun
Well-Known Member
CapnJim
Well-Known Member
Kevin, this is from a very old, well beaten thread from over a year ago. Here ya go:
CapnJim said:
staplegun
Well-Known Member
That's quite a sweeping statement to make from such selective criteria!
I think if you changed the mix of airlines you would also change the outcome.
FWIW I don't disagree with your core argument about low-time vs. high-time, I just don't think your example above comes even close to proving a definitive statment on the subject.
Kevin
jml2992
Pigeon Mutilator
I think it's pretty obvious that Bike21 has no idea about anything he posts on. 
Good on you for keeping people realistic or at least trying.
Hey buddy, shoot me a PM when you get a chance. I haven't heard from you in a couple of weeks and wanted to catch up.
P.S. Pretty impressive data compilation posted above.
Good on you for keeping people realistic or at least trying.Hey buddy, shoot me a PM when you get a chance. I haven't heard from you in a couple of weeks and wanted to catch up.
P.S. Pretty impressive data compilation posted above.
CapnJim
Well-Known Member
That's a fair criticism; I limited the selection to eight because to compile all the data would have taken more hours than I am willing to contribute on my day off for a web forum. If anyone is willing to spend the time going each NTSB report, one by one, for all regionals and all majors, I'm certain that the numbers would be different, but I doubt the outcome would be. The eight were chosen randomly, not selectively as you have implied. Consider the accuracy of random population sampling; is it absolute? No. But is it +90% accurate? Yeah.
I think that "dosen't even come close to proving a definitive statement" is a bit over of a sweeping stament in it's own right, particularly considering it's made from a standpoint of absolutely zero data. Perhaps you would like to take the bull by the horns and do your own research on the matter to back it up?
staplegun
Well-Known Member
By your definition you have used selective data, whether randomly chosen or not. I don't think the issue is as simple as you have made it out to be.
I could be wrong, and I'm not arguing from any contrary data (or any data at all!) Again, I simply disagree with this assertion, not your core argument.
No, I really don't. I'm perfectly happy to leave it at "I don't think you've made the case"...
Kevin
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
Know what bothers me? Bitter people that moan and whine about how much it sucks, but won't go away and find something else to do. They get offended by being called bitter, too.
You know who you are, but you won't admit it . . .
You know who you are, but you won't admit it . . .
CapnJim
Well-Known Member
Fair enough. that's all this discussion really boils down to anyway; one guy's opinion and another guy's opinion. It really shouldn't be a suprise to either of us that our respective opinions follow our respective experience levels pretty closely.
For the pilots who have had a lifetime of indoctrination to the linear view of pilot experience/competency relationships, it's a darn tough wall to break through. I don't expect that one limited statistical analysis will do anything to affect such a deeply held belief. It's enough for me to show that total time is only one measure of competency, and that measure is dependent on a large number of variables. It's just not the whole show anymore.
The next step is to show that that a rational pilot competency matrix, once quantified and proven, is a immutably valuable commodity. I should like to see that translate into much higher starting salaries for entry-level 121 jet pilots, and that expectation to follow through their entire career.
I have other ideas too.
staplegun
Well-Known Member
Very well said!
FWIW, as I've stated repeatedly here, I'm not a believer that low time = low skills/higher accident rate!
My experience
has shown me that there are plenty of boneheads with 10,000+ hours...Kevin