So...Does Experience Matter?

[Pilotforhire587]

I think at a basic level, I am talking ppl and instrument skills, you either get it or you don't. Past that its all about experience. Experience improves decision making and that is what makes a truly great pilot, right? That being said, experience has nothing to do with hours. Its all about what you have been through. Once I had 100 hours in the Mitts, and the again in each seat of the dash I was at a point where I couldn't really get any better at flying the aircraft itself, what makes me a better pilot now are my experiences. You can be a 10000 hour pilot and never have an emergency or abnormal situation and be much less skilled that a 3000 hour pilot who has had a lot of bad luck. Just my .02

 

[z987k]

At 250 hours I was willing to do stupid things like fly single engine airplanes night LIFR. I'm no longer eager to die in an airplane it seems.

 

[ryan1234]

I think that some of it is genetic and comes down to the ability to digest and utilize experience as well as basic hand-eye coordination and task management skills. Some of us don't really have great genetic abilities and rely much on luck. Some people, on the other hand, can do a perfect 1G roll in anything with wings.

It's really great to have this forum.. an online hangar to share experiences from those beginning flight training to those that have thousands and thousands of hours. Truly a treasure for up and coming pilots... all pilots for that matter.

 

[WacoFan]

Roughly 7000, maybe a shade less. Guess I'd better update that logbook...

Outstanding. You're at least 3,000 hours "Better" than Bumblebee and 2,000 hours "Better" than Kellwolf. I'm proud you are better.

 

[NewYorkophile]

The "poop your pants" moments have a great function in aviation- they give color and personality to the "what if" conversations we all have. You realize that "Oh, THAT'S what it feels like to nearly die", and that memory can become a bright reminder of how you should avoid not only THAT situation, but other situations as well.

Let's talk thunderstorms. "Oh, that yellow stuff isn't too bad, we can probably penetrate just fine. Oh •, we almost died. I will never do that again." Even though that lesson pertained to storms, I think there's some carry-over to "Should I shoot this NPA below mins to get in?" and "We're only a little bit over gross weight today." One terrifying moment makes all possible future terrifying moments a reality (especially when you realize just how easy it is to kill yourself).

Ever since my first "•, we're going to crash this • airplane" experience, I have become amazingly more conservative in my decision making and much less lenient with students/younger guys that don't appreciate/acknowledge/mitigate risks.

 

[WacoFan]

I would expect that it's a mix, although you couldn't put a 10,000 hour airline guy into an F-15 and expect him to perform what was needed most likely any quicker than a new guy (thinking about what Bunk, Hacker and AMG have said about flying being one aspect that is secondary to being a weapons operator). I don't think even that UPS Airbus guy, with his hours and hefty paycheck could spend a day working an AT-802 like T-cart does in the rice fields (although T-cart probably has more total time - either way, you get the drift). So, the kind of flying you're doing, mixed with training, mixed with experience in some recipe creates the stew. Ask yourself, Boris at 7,000 or Bumblebee at 4,000 or Kellwolf at 5,000 - could you fly a P-51 or F4U as successfully as the sub-300 hour WW2 guys? How long would it take you from your starting point now (with your hours) to become accomplished at flying the Mustang or Corsair, using it as a weapon effectively and not balling them up on a go-around or a landing? I think it would be less than the 250 or so hours that the WW2 guys had, but how much less?

 

[rframe]

Experience matters in two ways, the first is the opportunity to scare yourself into taking flying and risk management seriously and the second is relevancy of recent experience to the type of flying about to be done. After flying with a few 10,000+ hour complacent airline pilots who were better at telling stories than flying, my interest in and chances of being impressed by total time has pretty much disappeared.

Attitude, training, and recency of relevant flying experience.

 

[jtrain609]

Here is what is intriguing to me: A whole bunch of guys with a bit of experience say, "You know, looking back I thought I knew what I was doing, but in retrospect, it's obvious that I didn't." Then a bunch of folks want to argue with them, and explain to them how they're wrong, even though most of the folks doing the arguing have little experience. It's interesting, and a little frustrating, to watch the tail try to wag the dog.

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

The problem with the "poop yo pants" moments it that they offer little value as far a learning goes with dealing the situation at hand. Very few posess the ability to accuratly recreate the situation and objectively evaluate their own actions. About the only thing you can walk away with is an evaluation of how you got there in the first place and not to let it happen again. The handling of the incident itself is often a blur. What allows us to function amongst the chaos? Good training. It's experience that helps us identify the problem faster. Evaluating performance during the chaos is where the benefit of a second party comes in, such as a crew member or instructor.

Pooping your pants is not a time for leaning, it's a time for doing.

 

[kellwolf]

Ask yourself, Boris at 7,000 or Bumblebee at 4,000 or Kellwolf at 5,000 - could you fly a P-51 or F4U as successfully as the sub-300 hour WW2 guys? How long would it take you from your starting point now (with your hours) to become accomplished at flying the Mustang or Corsair, using it as a weapon effectively and not balling them up on a go-around or a landing? I think it would be less than the 250 or so hours that the WW2 guys had, but how much less?

No friggin' way. I'd probably ground loop the damn thing more times than I'd get it off the ground right now.

I think we could do it faster than someone coming in with no experience, but that's because we've got basic stick and rudder skills already taught to us instead of going out in a Stearman or a Texan to learn it first. Granted, it MIGHT actually be easier to do those first before moving into something like a P-51 or a F4U since it'll establish habits to build on with less of a chance of killing yourself. Using it as a weapon effectively would require even more specialized training since it's a different way of thinking.

Going from an airplane I was almost scarily complacent in to the E-190 was a bit of a wake up call. Toss in new SOPs at a different airline, it was almost like starting over again. I fumbled around a bit, but since I knew how to study and what the flow was as far as 121 ops go, it was a bit easier to finally get up to speed.

Which brings us back to what Emu said: attitude. I'm with him on that. I'd rather have someone that approaches things with a "teach me" attitude rather than someone that plays the "I have 1,000 hours in this plane" attitude. It's what I try to do now with every CA I fly with. Hell, even the FOs I flew with at Pinnacle could teach me things I didn't know.

As a side note, Waco, my dream is to one day be at least a part owner in a T-6 Texan. We've got about 4 of them based 5 minutes from my house in Orlando that fly over all the time. There's a place there that does insurance instruction in them for people buying them. I'd love to do that course and get some time in one down the road. If I own (or part own) a plane, it's going to be one I can have fun in. Flying from Point A to Point B is what I do at work....

 

[kellwolf]

The problem with the "poop yo pants" moments it that they offer little value as far a learning goes with dealing the situation at hand. Very few posess the ability to accuratly recreate the situation and objectively evaluate their own actions. About the only thing you can walk away with is an evaluation of how you got there in the first place and not to let it happen again. The handling of the incident itself is often a blur. What allows us to function amongst the chaos? Good training. It's experience that helps us identify the problem faster. Evaluating performance during the chaos is where the benefit of a second party comes in, such as a crew member or instructor.

Pooping your pants is not a time for leaning, it's a time for doing.

Which is why ASAP and FOQA can be great learning tools. Also, debriefing as a crew helps as one person might have seen things the other didn't. I know as a PM I see all kinds of stuff that I wouldn't see under the tunnel vision of PF, especially in the sim.

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

I know as a PM I see all kinds of stuff that I wouldn't see under the tunnel vision of PF, especially in the sim.

Not to change the topic, but this right here is hands-down the most valuable benefit of spending time as CFI. Yet, the most undervalued by those who never were.

Edit:
Actually, it is on topic. While sitting back and observing with the blinders off you are able to gain experience through some one else's leaning experiences. This observation and repetitiveness reintroduces the common errors that you were exposed to during initial training.

 

[WacoFan]

No friggin' way. I'd probably ground loop the damn thing more times than I'd get it off the ground right now.

I think we could do it faster than someone coming in with no experience, but that's because we've got basic stick and rudder skills already taught to us instead of going out in a Stearman or a Texan to learn it first. Granted, it MIGHT actually be easier to do those first before moving into something like a P-51 or a F4U since it'll establish habits to build on with less of a chance of killing yourself. Using it as a weapon effectively would require even more specialized training since it's a different way of thinking.

Going from an airplane I was almost scarily complacent in to the E-190 was a bit of a wake up call. Toss in new SOPs at a different airline, it was almost like starting over again. I fumbled around a bit, but since I knew how to study and what the flow was as far as 121 ops go, it was a bit easier to finally get up to speed.

Which brings us back to what Emu said: attitude. I'm with him on that. I'd rather have someone that approaches things with a "teach me" attitude rather than someone that plays the "I have 1,000 hours in this plane" attitude. It's what I try to do now with every CA I fly with. Hell, even the FOs I flew with at Pinnacle could teach me things I didn't know.

As a side note, Waco, my dream is to one day be at least a part owner in a T-6 Texan. We've got about 4 of them based 5 minutes from my house in Orlando that fly over all the time. There's a place there that does insurance instruction in them for people buying them. I'd love to do that course and get some time in one down the road. If I own (or part own) a plane, it's going to be one I can have fun in. Flying from Point A to Point B is what I do at work....

Thanks for the response - be interested to see what others say. It was perhaps a bit of a trick question that you addressed briefly. Yes,. you know stick and rudder, but also the primary (Stearman) and Basic (BT-13) and then Advanced (AT-6) MAY have sped them along on the process. They say that a fighter is easy to handle after mastering the T-6. Also, I know that my Grandpa was starting aerobatics almost immediately after solo in the Stearman (at ridiculously low time - like 10 or under) and they did spins prior to solo. That may have made it "easier" as they were starting to use the airplane as a weapon (unusual attitudes) at under 15 or 20 hours total time.

Go for the T-6 dream. Also, I had stupid amounts of fun with a BT-13. No retract, only a 450 Pratt - but damn near indestructible and cheaper than a T-6. I would seriously consider having one almost prior to a T-6 (maintenance, fuel burn, etc) - and as I said, stupid amounts of fun.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

If I own (or part own) a plane, it's going to be one I can have fun in. Flying from Point A to Point B is what I do at work....

Flying Point A to Point B is fun when it is someplace air carriers don't go

 

[WacoFan]

Flying Point A to Point B is fun when it is someplace air carriers don't go

Or if it is done in a Staggerwing or Spartan Executive. Or Waco or Howard.

 

[bunk22]

The only -- only -- way to build airmanship is through experience. It cannot be taught or learned in a classroom.

It can be artificially compensated for through a detailed and rigid set of procedures which legislate out the need to make decisions, but that only works when then only thing that occurs are things that have procedures written for them. As we know, aviation has ways of finding new and inventive occurrences that aren't covered in the manual, checklist, or QRH.

Important to note that it is not directly linked to just the amount of experience (ergo, hours), but it is linked to a combination of quality and quantity.

This and oh yeah, this again!!

 

[bunk22]

Am I strange because I think attitude is more inportant than anything?

If you have a piss poor attitude, neither training nor experience does a whole hell of a lot.

This argument is pointless anyway. This shouldn't be be a one or the other discussion. There is value in BOTH training and experience. Ideally you get a solid foundation through training, ample opportunity to go out and experience what you learned. Too that off with some recurrent training so that you can discuss and learn from your past experiences and you'll be in good shape.

The best way to be successful in life is to have a good attitude and strive to be well rounded.

Unfortunately people can have great attitudes and suck. The poor student I gave his final unsat too a few weeks ago had one of the best attitudes I've seen but his positive outlook could not overcome his performance. Not always the case but I will say a good attitude goes a long way.

 

[Max1594]

I agree with what alot of you guys are saying. As a very lowtime pilot myself I don't have much experience, but thats not to say that I haven't scared myself, learned from it and have become a safer pilot. But I try to learn as much as I can from older guys.

A common argument concerning the 1500 hour rule (which can rub some people the wrong way) is that a pilot with 300 hours could do just as well as a pilot with 1500 hours when it comes to flying at a regional, thats not to say the pilot with 1500 hours hasn't gained more experience, but that when it comes down to flying a jet, those 1200 extra hours of Cessna 172 time isn't going to make much of a difference. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but I think its interesting.

One of the best things I've learned from my instructor is that every pilot (for the most part) will go through phases of thinking they know everything and that they're the best, right up until something happens that humbles them( or they just learn something new, transition to a bigger plane etc). And from there they'll get more and more comfortable and eventually will get cocky again until something humbles them. Lather, Rinse, Repeat cycle.

 

[WacoFan]

I will say this - I do not believe that a pilot with 300 hours, and a pilot with 1,500 hours - that both went to through the same training are equivalent. The 1,500 hour guy is probably better. That's where the difference in training comes in. I think a 500 hour military guy is probably "better" at complex situations than a 1.500 hour regional guy. I believe crop-dusters are everyone's daddy. And that Jtrain sucks and is a hack.

 

[A150K]

I've got 500 hours, a fancy set Commercial and CFI tickets and I have absolutely no idea what I'm doing. I'm sure I'll feel the same when I have 1,000.