I am tired of...

[CapnJim]

Thanks, Kevin!

For me, the whole issuse boils down to defending our careers. I think the fear is that as lower and lower time pilots are hired into 121 jet positions, the upper salaries for pilots retiring will backslide as well. There's a lot of truth to this: I am 100% civilian trained, paid for it all myself, and went from a 15K CFI job to a 22K jet job with bennies, and was damn glad to get it. (I always feel compelled to say that I was hired at 1490/400 as some means of differentiating myself from the 250-hour wonders, and that compulsion is due solely to the stigma that low-time 121 pilots are continually faced with. )

I think that as a pilot group (and I mean all of us) our greatest defense to this backsliding is to to and end-around the whole hours-as-competency issue and promote a much more cogent, scientific, and financially convincing measure for our jobs. We are professional experts, but our professionalism and expertise are under continual attack by the advances of modern technology and the greed of bean-counters who see us as nothing more than glorified bus drivers and want nothing more than to pay us accordingly. Technology we can do nothing about; eventually, we will all be replaced by hyperactive autopilots or something similar. But bean-counters we can fight. So, if our hours aren't worth what they used to be, then let's measure what we are worth, and by God, let's get paid what we're worth!

 

[Malko]

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

Here are some numbers I pulled off of AOPA for the 2006 Nall Report (2005 data):

Accident Rates by Hours of Experience

# of Hours.......% of Total...% of Fatal
0-500.................34.9%....30.7%
501-1000 ............15.7%....19.0%
1001-1500............8.8%.....9.5%
1501-2000............7.6%.....7.4%
2001-2500............3.5%.....0.5%
2501-3000............3.0%.....2.6%
3001-3500............2.7%.....4.2%
3501-4000............2.1%.....3.2%
>4000................21.6%.....22.8%

One important note though:


Quote:
It should be noted that the pilots at this experience level (0-500) fly the vast majority of flying hours. As such, these statistics may not reflect the true safety record of less experienced pilots, but rather their increased exposure.
Time in Type


Quote:
The number of flight hours in a particular type of aircraft (Figure 22) also has an impact on safety. The more time in type a pilot has, the less likely he or she is to have an accident in that type. For both fatal and nonfatal categories in 2005, about 43 percent of accidents involved pilots with fewer than 100 hours experience in type. Total accident rates fall sharply after the first 100 hours of time in type.



http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/06nall.pdf?pl=ICOCNALL

 

[seagull]

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.

The industry is what it is, and currently people are getting hired with very low. However, along with your rant, I have to say that you said something that I have to fight to keep from getting under my skin. You ARE very low time, and, to me, I look at those hours and then see your words about "how hard you worked", and myself, and anybody who started when I did, would just shake their heads and think "you have NO idea what we went through to get to our first real job". As far as the rest of your story, we all have a similar story as well. Kind of like the rich kids who would make similar statemetns about how "hard" they worked. You'd be hard pressed to get a right seat Beech 1900 job with under 3000 total time when I was looking for my first job after the patchwork of instructing/charter, etc. In fact, I got hired at 3000 hrs at 23 years old, and most of my peers told me how "lucky I was to get hired with that low time".

Sorry, it just rubs me wrong. Count your blessings. Not saying you don't deserve to be where you are, as that is based on the current market dynamics, but you'll never get me to believe you've had it hard.

Again, not meant to put anyone down, but trying to give you some perspective of where we are coming from.

 

[seagull]

Jim

The thing that comes immediately to mind with your stat analysis is, first, what type of equipment are you comparing? The fact is that the newer part 25 jets have a lot of safety features built in that are not available in legacy aircraft, and that, in itself, can badly skew statistics. I should also note that many of the features, such as the newer generation EGPWS, etc., will also lower the "crew error" events by a significant margin.

Operating environment is a big factor, and I didn't see how you selected out International ops (and Canada doesn't count as International for this, and neither does the Carribean, in terms of operational challenges).

The issues involving flying a large widebody are a lot more significant than the differences between a kingair and a small jet, increasing risk exposure there. The normal operations have a lot higher percentage operating near performance limits. Did you factor that in?

That's a quick start to issues I see.

 

[CapnJim]

seagull- good points, I'll answer those I can:

I went through the NTSB reports one by one and selected out all but those who were domestic, Canada and Mexico. I don't recall any Carribbian reports.

I made no consideration for equipment: there may be some legacy ships in there with out certain whiz-bang gadgets, but there were also Saab 340's as well as modern large jets with all the accoutrements. There were no Kingairs whatsoever, nor small jets. Are you trying to say that since legacy jets are not as well equipped, and since widebodies are so complex to fly, that those factors accounts for a higher accident rate among the majors? It would seem that if that's the case, it could equally serve to show that total time is not the final answer to pilot competence, which was my point in the first place. But to be honest, I don't think either of those factors would show themselves to be statistically relevant, and from what I've heard from friends who have gone from RJ's to 75-76's, I think I might be right. That's just my opinion though, I may be wrong.

I'm certain, however, that given time enough and imagination, I myself could think up several pardons and excuses that would even up the disparity in my limited study. It's easy for anyone to point out percieved flaws or weaknesses to any statistical analysis, but it's quite another to compile your own data, and do it better. I would be much more interested to see if you can come up with more relevant data of your own than I am with any issues you find with mine. Several others have deferred- would you take that challenge?

 

[seagull]

I don't have the time to do it now, but I do think that if this had been a factor, then we would have picked it up on our data analysis at the National level.

I think there are some factors at work here, though. In addition to ones previously mentioned, there are other factors that may not play into the experience itself. I find it HIGHLY unlikely that experience does not increase safety margins.

You first need to find out the experience level of the relative crews. Despite the accident rates you mentioned, do you know whether the regional crews involved in those accidents have less flight time than the ones in the larger carriers? It's NOT a given!

Next, examine cultural issues. CRM has changed a LOT over the past few decades. By comparing people that have learned in one CRM environment with those that had a "clean slate" for the latest and greatest, you are not necessarily coming up with a comparison of the value of experience/hours, but rather a comparison of something else entirely.

To revisit the relative equipment, you mentioned the 757/767. Those are NOT current technology by any stretch, at best they are 3rd generation glass, and most of them are 2nd generation. The capabilities are somewhat less.

Dispatch reliability. How conservative are the regionals in terms of going in bad weather? Are any operating with CAT 3 capabilities? If not, that states quite a bit about how the airline is viewing dispatch reliability, and the extent the crews feel pressure to operate.

What is the actual experience level of the crews at the regionals at the carriers you used, particularly the captains?

Oh, and one other thing. You are including "incidents". Have you checked what constitutes and "incident"?

 

[meritflyer]

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 . . .

Fine... I admit it. :bandit:

 

[seagull]

In fact, the more I look at it, the INCIDENT rate really tells you nothing, as the newer equipment at the regionals would account for it completely, even crew related ones.

Post what the incidents were, exactly.

 

[Seggy]

Nevermind

 

[CapnJim]

I don't have the time to do it now, but I do think that if this had been a factor, then we would have picked it up on our data analysis at the National level.

I think there are some factors at work here, though. In addition to ones previously mentioned, there are other factors that may not play into the experience itself. I find it HIGHLY unlikely that experience does not increase safety margins.

You first need to find out the experience level of the relative crews. Despite the accident rates you mentioned, do you know whether the regional crews involved in those accidents have less flight time than the ones in the larger carriers? It's NOT a given!

Next, examine cultural issues. CRM has changed a LOT over the past few decades. By comparing people that have learned in one CRM environment with those that had a "clean slate" for the latest and greatest, you are not necessarily coming up with a comparison of the value of experience/hours, but rather a comparison of something else entirely.

To revisit the relative equipment, you mentioned the 757/767. Those are NOT current technology by any stretch, at best they are 3rd generation glass, and most of them are 2nd generation. The capabilities are somewhat less.

Dispatch reliability. How conservative are the regionals in terms of going in bad weather? Are any operating with CAT 3 capabilities? If not, that states quite a bit about how the airline is viewing dispatch reliability, and the extent the crews feel pressure to operate.

What is the actual experience level of the crews at the regionals at the carriers you used, particularly the captains?

Oh, and one other thing. You are including "incidents". Have you checked what constitutes and "incident"?

I find it highly unlikely that experience does not increase saftey margins as well; that's not what I'm proposing here. What I am proposing is that total time is not the whole story, yet is is commonly treated as such. If nothing else comes of this except an abandonment of such notions as "500 hour pilots have no business even looking at a jet aircraft!" and "These 600 hour wonders are inherently dangerous!", then it will be more than worthwhile.

Darned if I don't think I've presented a good case for just that. Not just the stats either, those are limited in several ways in their own right; but in logic, reason, and a more careful examination of what's going on than just emotional appeal and snap-decision opinion forming.

I get a lot of static from the higer-time crowd for this kind of thing, and I understand why: Some people will see this as tantamount to slamming their experience and expertise. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and that is not what I am trying to accomplish. What I am trying to accomplish is to discredit the unfair slamming of pilots whose excellence is being masked by an arbitrary number that may or may not have anything to do with their ability.

 

[seagull]

Jim

There is no doubt that there are many degrees with experience. I think we are on the same page to say that, all else equal, more experience DOES equate to a higher performing pilot. However, clearly, all else is NOT equal.

A similar situation occurs due to lack of currency, which is a bucket I fit in at the moment. For several reasons, most out of my control, I have hardly flown for the past couple of years, with a couple of breaks over 6 months with no flying at all. Despite all that (and without the intent to blow my own horn), I have still been able to go in and take a checkride with virtually no debrief items at all, aside from "great job". Why is that? I don't consider myself to be "God's gift to pilots" or anything like that.

Part of it is attitude. Part of it is years of experience, and to that end, I actually have been surprised that my basic stick and rudder skills did not degrade significantly (I notice it, but others don't seem to). No doubt I hold myself to very high standards. I notice that my overall SA is a LOT less than it was when I was very current, and I find it VERY frustrating. More on that in a moment.

I think a big part of it is that my head is "in the game" all the time. Whether I am on this forum, talking with friends or working my "desk" job, I think about some operational aspect of flying virtually every day, and usually multiple times per day. I have been doing that since I was about 14, working at the local airport with a work permit due to my age. Constantly absorbing.

Despite that, what I see is that a low time pilot can be fairly proficient, but, to an even greater extent than I am experiencing now, their overall SA just will not be there. The other part of SA, though, is that, unlike in my case (where I am well aware of what full SA is like), these pilots do not have the experience to recognize that they lack the SA that they will have down the road. They MIGHT see in in hindsight, but even then, it's harder than going from high SA to a lower grade of it.

The other aspect is that a significant portion of those pilots do NOT live and breath aviation for most waking moments. A person who does not, who thinks that things like aerobatic training is not important, or doesn't dig to REALLY learn the nuts and bolts of their "profession", is NEVER going to be all that good, and, tragically, will not even recognize that fact!

I see this all too often, even in this forum here, where some people don't care to understand how things like "lift" REALLY work (how many threads have we had on THAT subject in just this forum?), because they think it doesn't matter. Well, perhaps they can get away with faulty knowlege to a certain extent, but what I see is an ATTITUDE that lends itself to all areas of their performance. It certainly is a "red flag" to me, and would be something I would have to consider if I were involved in their hiring process and became aware of it!

While I would like to take credit for these observations, I have to give credit to an acquaintance of mine, John Goglia. Google the name if you don't know it. It is one of his "soap box" topics.

 

[Airdale]

Not saying you don't deserve to be where you are, as that is based on the current market dynamics, but you'll never get me to believe you've had it hard.

You're right, I haven't worked hard to get here.

 

[seagull]

You're right, I haven't worked hard to get here.

Nobody said that you didn't work hard, just that you haven't worked HARDER than anyone else, and overall, due to the low hour requirements out there now, you've had it relatively easy. All of us had to work fairly hard to get that first couple hundred hours. The difference is that, while you got a job with that wet-ink commercial and instrument, a few years ago you didn't have a chance without an ATP and more multi- time than you have TOTAL time, and that was just to get a chance to fly for a "commuter" airline (none were "regionals" at that time), in a C-402 or Navajo, and eventually move up to a Beech 99 or Bandit, and then some larger turboprops.

By the time you were on something like a dash-8, you had thousands of hours and that included multi-turbine.

When the majors started hiring again, in the second half of the 80s, the typical applicant had a LOT of experience, even compared to the early through mid- 90s, and the hours have been dropping since.

I think the

 

[Malko]

Goglia, Googled

 

[Mav4840h]

Nobody said that you didn't work hard, just that you haven't worked HARDER than anyone else, and overall, due to the low hour requirements out there now, you've had it relatively easy. All of us had to work fairly hard to get that first couple hundred hours.

Is that why you are so angry about the low time guys? Because they didn't have to work as hard to get the same thing you worked really hard for?

 

[seagull]

Is that why you are so angry about the low time guys? Because they didn't have to work as hard to get the same thing you worked really hard for?

I'm not "angry" at them at all. I just want them to be aware that they are, actually, VERY fortunate, and to quit whining about how "hard" they think they have it, and realize that they ARE low time, so, regardless of how hard they think they may have "worked" at it, they are not going to be as situational aware as someone with a lot more experience, all else equal. These rants that "I'm just as good as someone with 10 times as many hours" are just nonesense. They will realize that once they GET to that sort of flight time, but until then, they won't know.

I do think that at some point in there, the hour difference starts to fade. However, that is not true for the first couple thousand hours, primarily because with less time than that, the person just has not had the opportunity to see very much, and "book knowledge" only goes so far.

There is also a factor of having been through a few seasons. Someone that's been flying professionally for 5 years, but 200 hours/year has likely seen more than someone that flew 1000 hours all in one year, and, all else equal (in terms of attitude, ability, equipment and environment flown in, etc), the person who flew the same or less time over a 5 year period will actually be MORE experienced than the 1000 hour in one-year guy.

So, to clarify, it's not JUST the low relative time, but that, in combination with that, most of these folks have only been flying for a couple of years, total.