So...Does Experience Matter?

[n57flyguy]

When a pilot fly's a certain aircraft, flying specific profile's, missions, etc, they do become very good at what they do. However, they may not be very good at other aspects of flying but can probably pick it up quickly given the chance. For example, the pilots that fly BFM down here in Kingsville do it day in and day out. Matter of fact, 95% of what they fly is BFM. Then they go do a NATOPS check and suck at certain things, like PA's, aero, etc. Given a few flights, I'm sure they could master it. What I do 90% of the time is formation flying, most of it as a lead in section and division. I went out and did a NATOPS flight not so long ago and for example, performing the the squirrel cage, I was just awful. Again, this is a small part of flying but it shows how an experienced pilot can be less than par depending.
.........

Edited for brevity....

I think you also touch on the issue of proficiency in the cockpit, as well as confidence. Different aspects and types of flying seem to require different levels of proficiency, but they always require confidence in the ability to fly the airplane. When SHTF, you have your prior experience, training, and confidence to make the right decisions to get yourself back to the ground safely. When that rug gets pulled from under, which it has for me, I realized in after thought that the only thing getting me to the ground was awareness that I needed to get there fast. Flying the airplane, as I think it should be, was second nature to accomplish that new goal of the flight. That then became an experience to put in my bag.

Proficiency is needed to gain experience, experience breeds confidence, confidence allows one to learn.

 

[Jet]

I hate to say it but if somebody is asking does experience matter you really have to question their intelligence for even asking such a question. (no offense)

 

[Boris Badenov]

Hah! None taken, Junior.

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

If we really want to make it a legitimate comparison to aviators, we'd have to say that the appendectomy surgeon had been subsequently retrained and fully qualified to perform heart surgeries.

In other words, he'd be carrying the experience learned having cut into, worked on, and sewn up 495 more patients than the 5-operation heart surgeon.

That's what we're talking about with respect to the difference between airmanship and motor skills; anyone on the experience scale can go to an RJ course and learn how to run checklists, flip switches, and program FMSs (motor skills), but lesser experienced pilots don't have the airmanship to back up the decisions they're inevitably going to have to make.

No argument there at all.

Lets say you have a pt 91 Hawker crew. The Captain has 3500 hours TT, 2000ME, 1500 in type, 1000sic in type and 500 PIC in type. They hire a new FO who has 7000 TT, nearly as much PIC, 3000ME (all piston), very little turbine, and a fresh PIC type in the Hawker. Both are equally qualified on paper but who has more experience for that particular operation? Now I'm sure there are some things the FO could eventually teach the Captain, but for the time being the Captain has the experience to make the decisions. Not to say the the FO's experience isn't valuable. It probably made initial much easier and might even help him upgrade to captain sooner.

I think we're getting on this infinite loop of Training vs. Experience vs. Flight Time....

All I'm saying is that numbers do not necessarily equal experience. If you want numbers=experience then you have to compare apples to apples. Autothrust Blue

 

[Boris Badenov]

I think you're right that we're repeating ourselves, but I think it bears repeating...you can teach anyone with a triple digit IQ to operate an airplane...any airplane. You cannot teach airmanship and judgment...they develop organically (for want of a better word). If you don't know how to operate the switches, all the airmanship in the world isn't going to do you much good: Yes, true! Undeniable! But we're parallel processing, learning organisms, and if there's a reason to have honest to God pilots up front, it's because of this fact. At the risk of cliche, Al Haynes and his crew spring to mind. There was no checklist for that situation...they parlayed several lifetimes of experience flying airplanes of all sorts in all sorts of situations in to a better outcome than there was any rational expectation of. IMHO, there's just no way a cockpit full of highly trained, intelligent, competent, sober, conscientious 250 hour pilots could have achieved the same result. Which is no sort of shame on this theoretical, less-experienced crew, mind you, just a reminder that there are some things you simply cannot learn in a classroom or a simulator.

 

[Jet]

I wish I was a young junior! So I'm glad we finally solved the deeply intellectual question that a 5,000 hour pilot's experience has significance and meaning over a 250 hour pilot with all other variables held constant.

 

[Firebird2XC]

Devil's advocate- could it be suggested that experience and lessons derived from it cannot actually be quantified, as no two pilots are exactly equal, ether in their making or their experiences?

If that is true, then no number of hours can quantify a given sum total of knowledge gained through experience, not can you derive proof of the ability to exercise judgement. It must be tested, to a minimum level, and certified by the witness of skills by a designated pilot examiner or check airman.

Every tenth of an hour logged on the Hobbs meter has the potential to teach, and every lesson taught may or may not fully, successfully impart the lesson being offered.

Ergo, one may learn faster, or one may learner slower, but if you raise the number of those lesson opportunities high enough, you reduce the possibility of those experience being missed.

As Boris once said, "Experience is good, Education is good, but Both is better." As your intial education sets you out with a "license to learn" to gain experience, you then garner more education from your experiences. More time, therefore, means more of everything. And more of everything, in terms of piloting skills, means more safety.

Sometimes more is just better.

 

[Vector4Food]

So, what's better...

1000 hours flying meat bombs VFR in range of the airport at all times

Or 250 hours Bush flying the wild with a map a watch and a WC.... I'd prefer the second

 

[bunk22]

Years ago, a Navy pilot named Paul Speer bagged a Mig-17 flying an F-8 Crusader during a large engagement, May of 1967. A few years later, he was a CAG flying the F-4J and was involved in an engagement flying against Mig-21's. His wing scored a kill but he did not. He had more experience, 3000+ hours in fighters but was relatively new to the F-4 and admitted he didn't fly as aggressively as he would have in the F-8. He just didn't have the confidence he had in the F-8, not as proficient. Out there but you get the point I think.

 

[kellwolf]

So, what's better...

1000 hours flying meat bombs VFR in range of the airport at all times

Or 250 hours Bush flying the wild with a map a watch and a WC.... I'd prefer the second

While the second might be more fun, if your goal is to fly for an airline that doesn't do a whole lot of bush flying, I'd say both are about equal when it comes to experience preparing you for the airline flying. It all depends on what an individual pilot's goals are. Odds of having to fall back on pilotage, maps and a compass in an airliner? You've got a WHOLE lot bigger fish to fry since you've not only lost all electrical power, you've also lost every battery back up ever built into the plane.

 

[JustinS]

I picked option number 3, but I also agree with option 4. Training and primacy I think is very important though. Gotta get down the basics before you go learning from your mistakes without a CFI around...

 

[ryan1234]

I agree with option number 5

 

[Hacker15e]

6 and 9 are my preferences.

 

[z987k]

So, what's better...

1000 hours flying meat bombs VFR in range of the airport at all times

Or 250 hours Bush flying the wild with a map a watch and a WC.... I'd prefer the second

Having flown both to a small extent I'd take the latter. However, I have found that those bush skills just don't transfer all that well to flying anything all the much bigger(and flying skydiver certainly doesn't either.). Stick and rudder.. to and extent, but I need someone next to me that chuckles at a mins approach. No one that pays really good money is running around VFR trying to kill themselves. Although interestingly enough, if anything I do see a deficiency in VFR(VMC) flying skills a lot more often than IFR. However that's possible.
We had an interesting dilemma recently. The client wanted • TONS of AK time, but also • TONS of Lear time. I laughed so hard. I doubt there's more than a dozen pilots in existence that meet that requirement, and if they exist I imagine they already have pretty good jobs.

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

How can it NOT be option 3??? I don't think there's a pilot in here who decided they waned to fly so they read a book and learned by trial & error.

Sure experience is important, but the initial training for whatever the operation is the vehicle that allows the experience to happen. If you have a SHTF moment, without proper training, the experience gained will have little value.

EDIT:
One thing that needs to be considered is the type of training... For example, a ground lesson on "Stall/Spin Awareness" and an actual scenario-based flight where we actually explore every possible departure from normal flight, by definition, are both considered "training"... Just something to think about..

The very reason why there is a preflight and post flight briefing is to reinforce the actual experience that was the flight.

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

Although interestingly enough, if anything I do see a deficiency in VFR(VMC) flying skills a lot more often than IFR. However that's possible.

Happens ALL the time. IFR, aside form the possible WX situations is much easier than VFR. If you think about it, the majority of decisions about departure, routing, altitudes, and arrival into the terminal area have already been planned out for you in a nice, neat package. Controlled airspace is only an issue for IFR departures from a class G or E airport in MVFR (for non-jet aircraft under pt 91).

VFR skills and decision making is a skill set that can deteriorate just like IFR skills when not used regularly. I believe this has a lot to do with private pilots jumping right into the instrument rating as soon as they finish their private. These are either career oriented pilots trying to get it all done or flight schools market the instrument rating as a "safety" thing. These pilots jump right into the instrument world without really getting a chance to hone their skills as a VFR pilot.

 

[Boris Badenov]

It pretty much takes fingernail-removal-via-pincers for me to fly VFR point to point, anymore. I'll blast off VFR to get a clearance, but as 22L says, the skills atrophy...

 

[kellwolf]

How can it NOT be option 3??? I don't think there's a pilot in here who decided they waned to fly so they read a book and learned by trial & error.

Sure experience is important, but the initial training for whatever the operation is the vehicle that allows the experience to happen. If you have a SHTF moment, without proper training, the experience gained will have little value.

EDIT:
One thing that needs to be considered is the type of training... For example, a ground lesson on "Stall/Spin Awareness" and an actual scenario-based flight where we actually explore every possible departure from normal flight, by definition, are both considered "training"... Just something to think about..

Having flown with FOs that are pretty much all training and no experience, I'll take the experience, thanks. Those guys tended to be pretty good on which QRH procedure to run in an emergency and could quote me limitations and memory items verbatim, but when it came to "Where do we go when we don't have alternate fuel and our destination just got covered by a 50 mile wide thunderstorm system," I was pretty much single pilot.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

It pretty much takes fingernail-removal-via-pincers for me to fly VFR point to point, anymore. I'll blast off VFR to get a clearance, but as 22L says, the skills atrophy...

I can't remember the last thing I flew that even had a VOR...

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

Having flown with FOs that are pretty much all training and no experience, I'll take the experience, thanks. Those guys tended to be pretty good on which QRH procedure to run in an emergency and could quote me limitations and memory items verbatim, but when it came to "Where do we go when we don't have alternate fuel and our destination just got covered by a 50 mile wide thunderstorm system," I was pretty much single pilot.

Wouldn't you say that the training system failed you as a Captain by allowing an FO to slip through the cracks, to be placed beside you who couldn't perform this task?