Willing to • myself out!!!

A type rating and no total time doesn't do jack diddly-squat for ya.

I can get Kristie a DC-10 type rating with the <1500 hr waiver and a CMELI but without any substantial DC-10 time, it's a waste of time, money and effort.
 
CapnJim said:
I reject the notion that a 1000 hour airline pilot is significantly 'safer' than a 250 hour one. The data just do not bear this out. Seems to make sense on the surface, but it's more speculation than science.

Neither the 1000 hour pilot, nor the 250 hour pilot has any business in an airliner. In a controlled setting...such as in a simulator training environment...where tasks are objective based and evaluated...and repeated until proficiency is attained...successfully acheiving the completion standards is likely for either experience level.

As for data...there was a study a while back...I think the Hilton study...that found that inexperienced pilots made 3 times as many mistakes as experienced pilots....however, I don't recall what passed for "experienced" and "inexperienced" and I don't recall the medium of observation. I would be willing to guess that inexperienced pilots are many times more likely to wash out of a training program. I do know that once a pilot reaches several thousand hours without an accident or incident, he/she is not likely to be involved in one. A low timer with an accident/incident...is likely to be involved in more than one throughout the balance of his/her career. I know from experience as a commuter captain...that after flying with a low time guy...I was much much more tired at the end of the day than with flying with a high time guy. Low time guys seem to get task saturated and tunnel vision when the degree of difficulty rises...leading to reduced situational awareness and the ability to multi-task...and also a noticable reduction in precision flying.

But much more important, IMO, than stick skills...is the ability to make decisions that will hamper the low time guy. A pilot who has been in the air for a couple of thousand hours will begin to know what's right and what's not. What does adequate visibility look like from DH? Does that amount of icing require a diversion? What does poor braking action feel like? Is my captain exhibiting good decision making skills...is that normal to fly that why? Or is he operating outside of normal boundaries? Should we be diverting? How long can we hold with this gas? Are we holding too long...or diverting too early?

Under a couple thousand hours...I definitely think the ability to act on the above situations is hampered.

There will be a measure of pilots a couple of standard deviations to the left that can handle the situation. The vast majority who fall to the right of the curve are just not ready for that situation...as a fully functional, quality decision maker. It should not be the norm for a company to put such a profile in the situation.
 
B767Driver said:
.......
As for data...there was a study a while back...I think the Hilton study...that found that inexperienced pilots made 3 times as many mistakes as experienced pilots....however, I don't recall what passed for "experienced" and "inexperienced" and I don't recall the medium of observation. .....

Looks like the "Hilton Study" referred to the age 60 rule..... Still digging....
 
Chris_Ford said:
Do you think if the general public knew that people with THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY HOURS OF TOTAL TIME and LESS THAN 25 MULTI are flying hundreds of people around a day? Dateline NBC could have a field day with this.

God forbid.

Seeing how these threads keep popping up daily, I recommend that nobody here go fly any airline in Europe. I mean, all those low time pilots. I met a KLM pilot starting as a relief pilot on the B747-400 with 400 hours last year.

I'm just going to steer clear of the General Topics section anymore, since obviously us low time hires don't know jack squat. Pointless for me to post here I guess.
 
supercell86 said:
You think 300TT is low....as I said my instructor's friend.....20 years old....250TT, and he's an F/O on the CRJ for Mesa....he's also flying the CRJ-900 (he's based in PHX)...why I specifically mention that aircraft is just the simple fact that you have someone second in command with 250TT on a RJ that fits almost 100 people on it....I'm not gunna sit here and write about how scary that it or whatever....but it kinda gets my attention.....has he even been in IMC:confused:

I cry fowl...from the website!

spacer.gif
Pilot Positions
Mesa Air Group is currently hiring for First Officers

Minimum Qualifications
  • 1000 hours Total Time
  • 100 hours Multi Engine Time, Fixed Wing
  • Commercial Pilot Certificate with Multi Engine and Instrument ratings
  • Current FAA First Class Medical certificate
  • Instrument current and proficient
  • Actual Instrument time commensurate with experience
  • FCC Restricted Radiotelephone Operator Permit
  • Current passport
  • At least 21 years of age
  • Legally authorized to work in the United States of America
  • Willing to relocate
  • Able to pass security background check and FAA mandated drug test
  • High school diploma or GED
supercell86 said:
Absolutly...that's why its not really scary it just amazes the hell outa me! Probably because I could be flying one of those RJ's very soon if I wanted, but I don't have SJS that bad...yet....


I don't buy that for a second...I bet at 249TT your flooding the regionals with your resume...maybe even 248TT.
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
I cry fowl...

http://flightcareers.com/

I used to instruct there. In fact, I just got off the phone with a couple former students who I signed off for their commercial checkrides in August of last year, and are in or through training @ mesa, all with less than 250 TT. The lowest time guy I saw that went to Mesa was @ 220 or there abouts.

They used to put them in the 1900, but now they are going into the CRJ almost exclusively. There's even a non-certified CRJ sim in Farmington that the students get something like 40 hours in before going into the interview.


~wheelsup

P.S. This program has been around since 1989. I talked to a guy whom I met on a Great Lakes 1900 who was in the very first MAPD class (he was a pax, no longer flying). He said there were about 10 of them in the group, and knows of one that is currently at NWA. The program is a great way for young people (or older folks) to jumpstart their career. I could see more and more of this stuff happening here in the US - I was flying with a CA today who even suggested OUR airline start up a school like this :)! What sucks is I find some of these guys tend to look down their noses at instructors, because they didn't have to build their time before getting hired...
 
But on the minimums thing, you can't compare what was happening a few months ago with what is happening in terms of minimums today
 
Looks like the "Hilton Study" referred to the age 60 rule..... Still digging....
JEP said:
Looks like the "Hilton Study" referred to the age 60 rule..... Still digging....
B767Driver said:
.......
As for data...there was a study a while back...I think the Hilton study...that found that inexperienced pilots made 3 times as many mistakes as experienced pilots....however, I don't recall what passed for "experienced" and "inexperienced" and I don't recall the medium of observation. .....

This may be what you were referring to:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/03nall.pdf
Pilot Experience​




A pilot’s flying experience, usually thought of in terms of
total flight hours, is often regarded by the public as the best
indicator for safety. There is undoubtedly some truth to this,
although last year’s Nall Report found that student pilots
had relatively few accidents (7.7 percent of all accidents)
even though they accounted for 15.3 percent of the total
pilot population. Private, commercial, and airline transport
pilots, however, were all involved in more accidents than
their representation in the total pilot population should
support. One possible explanation for this apparent anomaly
is in the higher degree of supervision exercised over student
pilots, and the fact that most flight training is conducted
in good weather conditions, and in carefully controlled
circumstances.
This year, ASF correlated total and fatal accidents in 2002
with the reported hours of experience of the pilot in command.
Not surprisingly, pilots with 500 or fewer total hours
accounted for 37.3 percent of all accidents, and 30.8 percent
of fatal accidents, while the absolute lowest involvement
in fatal accidents was by pilots with between 2,001
and 2,500 total hours. ASF studies have shown that low
pilot time in type is often a significant contributing factor in
accidents. Transitioning to a new aircraft, even one that is
less complex, can cause problems for experienced pilots as
well as novices.





Please note that these are raw numbers, and have not been​



adjusted for exposure. Neither the FAA nor the NTSB keeps
records that show the distribution of experience levels in the
pilot population, nor records that could be used to gauge the
amount of flying done in any specific year by any given group
of pilots with a similar experience level.





 
B767, those are interesting points, and I'd like to see the data before I'm totally convinced.
If you think that no one under 2500 hours should be in an airliner, where should those hours come from? 2500 hours of sitting in a Seminole won't do the job. Cargo? Are there enough jobs? Hm!
 
wheelsup said:
http://flightcareers.com/

I used to instruct there. In fact, I just got off the phone with a couple former students who I signed off for their commercial checkrides in August of last year, and are in or through training @ mesa, all with less than 250 TT. The lowest time guy I saw that went to Mesa was @ 220 or there abouts.

They used to put them in the 1900, but now they are going into the CRJ almost exclusively. There's even a non-certified CRJ sim in Farmington that the students get something like 40 hours in before going into the interview.

~wheelsup

I wasn't talking about total time. I'm aware that if a flight school has an agreement with a regional mins are reduced greatly. No the mins on the website are for people off the street.

But I cried fowl because he said his friend who is 20 is an F/O flying a CRJ-900 hense the bolded 21. Every regional out there has a stated age of 21 or older. Again I cry fowl.
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
I wasn't talking about total time. I'm aware that if a flight school has an agreement with a regional mins are reduced greatly. No the minson the website are for people off the street.

But I cried fowl because he said his friend who is 20 is an F/O flying a CRJ-900. Every regional out there has a stated age of 21 or older. Again I cry fowl.

I have a former student on the Dash @ mesa who is 19. They operate under the same certificate as the -900's...
 
FlyChicaga said:
God forbid.

Seeing how these threads keep popping up daily, I recommend that nobody here go fly any airline in Europe. I mean, all those low time pilots. I met a KLM pilot starting as a relief pilot on the B747-400 with 400 hours last year.

.

I don't have numbers in front of me...but I think the Europeans and Asians have a significantly poorer safety record than our domestic airlines. I've known guys who've instructed for them...and will never put their families aboard.

As for the relief pilot...most don't even consider them pilots...I don't think they ever make a takeoff or landing...are they even given currency consideration? I may be way off be with this.
 
As far as I know, I have a friend flying 'relief' for JAL and he's more or less allowed to sit in the cockpit, do position reports but not actually physically manipulate the aircraft.
 
CapnJim said:
B767, those are interesting points, and I'd like to see the data before I'm totally convinced.
If you think that no one under 2500 hours should be in an airliner, where should those hours come from? 2500 hours of sitting in a Seminole won't do the job. Cargo? Are there enough jobs? Hm!


Very diplomatic response, Jim. I'm sure you could have easily come unglued with my response.

Where do the jobs come from? Well, first off...this will never happen unless the FAA revises the minimum qualifications for Part 121. But if it did happen...I think there would be plenty of pilots who'd meet the mins. But then, the charter/part 135 industry would begin to suffer experience problems...and that segment of the industry could suffer significant safety lapses. On the other hand...this segment would prove a mighty training camp for a young pilot. A charter outfit would need to hire, and compensate well, an experienced captain. A young guy would co-pilot and build experience in a lower paced, less sophisticated operation. The young guy would then cycle thru to the airline after 2 to 4 years of building quality multi engine/ifr experience. The charter co-pilot job would be a rotating door...and probably very low paid.

This is where a 500 hour pilot should be entering the workforce...not in a Part 121 RJ.

This permits the RJ copilot to come to the airline with experience and confidence and also with the ability to earn a higher wage...given his depth of experience over a person not yet qualified to fly for the airline.

Right now...the regional f/o is filling a job that I think should be going to a KingAir/Citation copilot.

But that's just me...and I don't think to many people in the government are going to adopt my recommendations. :)
 
There have been some interesting comments on this post, but I would like to know what a low time pilot can do to best prepare him/herself to go to the regionals asap. I am a very low time pilot, just starting out, and would like to know what pilots at any level recommend. Feel free to PM me if you dont want to respond in the forum.
 
Hey...these low time guys are really doing a heck of a job. Although it sounds like it...I've got nothing against any individual. I want everyone to get their job and succeed and to do so at their earliest opportunity. My point is the statistics encompassing the population of such a profile are less than optimum.

If 20 years from now I've got a co-pilot sitting next to me as we cross the pond that got hired with 300 hours I'd treat him as no less as a professional as the one who got hired with 4000 hours of F-16 time. That's what professionals do. They do their job, with skill and precision and treat their colleagues with trust and respect.

I just happen to think hiring practices at some airlines are less than optimal. I'm sure they have practices in place to provide adequate supervision. I know of some airlines that provided 100 hours of company mandated OE for experience levels below a determined threshold.
 
Back
Top