Willing to • myself out!!!
- Thread starter Chris_Ford
- Start date
CapnJim
Well-Known Member
Does matter- you said so yourself.NJA_Capt said:
Never asked for opinions-asked for stats.
Never asked for references- asked for stats.
Never presented references- presented stats.
Yeah, that pretty much makes me more right.
With each passing day, more low-timers are hired, as they have been for some time now. Moreover, are you giving up on your previous stance of captains not being 'groomed' enough?NJA_Capt said:
Read again- I said 'going down' not 'run aground'. Perhaps this same mistake led to your previous misquotation?NJA_Capt said:
Alchemy
Well-Known Member
As much as I hate to say it, as long as they are held to the same standards as everyone else during training and IOE, I don't see why they someone can't safely function as a crewmember at 250 hours.
However, I think it's reasonable to expect to see at least one prior "flying job" on the resume before crossing into turbine equipment, even if it is just flying 152s around the patch. I know that's a prerequisite for most regional jobs....at least some kind of prior employment that required a pilot certificate. For most people that means they will have a CFI, usually a CFII. Anyone with a CFII should have enough knowledge of the IFR environment to cope with turbine flying.
jrh
Well-Known Member
Could somebody share some examples of experienced captains "babysitting" low-time FOs? I'm interested in hearing stories of some close calls where there would have been trouble if the captain hadn't been there. I'm talking about real world, rubber meets the road, personal experiences with low-time pilots doing scary things that probably would not have happened to a more experienced pilot.
I don't know what to make of this debate. I don't have an opinion one way or the other. It seems like Jim is using too small of numbers to base his statistics on, and it seeems like the high-time captains keep making broad generalizations without offering any specific examples to back up their ideas. I can see the logic behind both sides, but I think both sides are weak.
Where are the scary incidents that almost became an NTSB statistic, yet the captain saved it?
I don't know what to make of this debate. I don't have an opinion one way or the other. It seems like Jim is using too small of numbers to base his statistics on, and it seeems like the high-time captains keep making broad generalizations without offering any specific examples to back up their ideas. I can see the logic behind both sides, but I think both sides are weak.
Where are the scary incidents that almost became an NTSB statistic, yet the captain saved it?
jrh
Well-Known Member
CapnJim said:
Yes, very true. I didn't mean to say if somebody can tell a story I'll automatically believe them. I just meant it would be easier to see where the experienced captains are coming from. So far I'll I've seen is, "Low time pilots are bad, because they have low experience...and...they haven't seen much...and...yeah...they don't really know what they're doing. You'll understand what I mean when you get enough experience yourself."
That might all be true. I don't know. I'd just like to hear somebody say, "I was flying with a guy with 700 hours and he screwed up this, this, and this. I had to watch him like a hawk because he kept messing up this and that, too. If he had had more experience, he wouldn't have done those things."
It may or may not apply to low time pilots, but it would be a lot easier to understand than generalizations of "You'll see what we mean, someday."
I was less safe as a low-time (only about 6,000 hrs) FO than I am now. There's your statistic.
As the age-old proverb goes, there are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics. Your accidents per departure "statistics" prove nothing.
And the word is PRECISELY!
As the age-old proverb goes, there are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics. Your accidents per departure "statistics" prove nothing.
And the word is PRECISELY!
CapnJim
Well-Known Member
Good points jrh- no matter what you're PIC of, you're going to have to break in some new guys, and hence you're going to have some stories. But it dosen't matter if your breaking in a 250 hour RJ FO, or a 4000 hour 1500 hour Turbine PIC 777 FO, you're still going to have a disparity of competence.
I suppose that's the crux of the argument- Is the disparity of competence beetween a low-time jet newhire (loosely defined as 250-500 hours) and a higher-time jet newhire (loosely defined as 1000-1500 hours) significant enough to declare the low-timer unsafe? I contend that it is not. If it were, the hiring practices of regional airlines should have, even in the slightest amount, translated into a higher accident/incident rate. As best as I can distill the data, the precise opposite has been shown to be true.
And Tony, if my statistics prove nothing, then the anecdotes, opinions, and conjecture of the opposing side prove less than nothing. Proof was asked for, proof was given. If the proof is somehow unacceptable, then by all means, let's have the evidence showing it to be wrong.
Still waiting.
I suppose that's the crux of the argument- Is the disparity of competence beetween a low-time jet newhire (loosely defined as 250-500 hours) and a higher-time jet newhire (loosely defined as 1000-1500 hours) significant enough to declare the low-timer unsafe? I contend that it is not. If it were, the hiring practices of regional airlines should have, even in the slightest amount, translated into a higher accident/incident rate. As best as I can distill the data, the precise opposite has been shown to be true.
And Tony, if my statistics prove nothing, then the anecdotes, opinions, and conjecture of the opposing side prove less than nothing. Proof was asked for, proof was given. If the proof is somehow unacceptable, then by all means, let's have the evidence showing it to be wrong.
Still waiting.
stuckingfk
Well-Known Member
jrh said:
This was taken from a different thread posted by Bog.
http://forums.jetcareers.com/showthread.php?p=306967#post306967
post 124
"Yes, flying around in the RJ, or the Beech, is scary when the person next to you has 300 hours or less. Been there, done that, and you are VERY ALONE!!!!
I do believe I posted it before, but just a few weeks after I upgraded in the RJ (with 4000TT, personal choice), I did a leg from LAS to ELP. Weather enroute wasn't too bad, but the weather in ELP hadn't cleared out like it was supposed to. No alternate (none was required), not enough gas to go anywhere of choice, and no-one but myself to bounce ideas off. My FO, a good guy with all of 400TT, was basically worthless because he had no experience. Could he answer systems questions? Sure. Could he pass a checkride? Yeup. Was he of any use real use to me? Nope.
Not much will chill your bones worse than sitting at FL350, 88 people behind you, one next to you, and knowing that it truely all does rest upon your shoulders. This is why I'm not a fan of the academies or any fast-track program."
DE727UPS
Well-Known Member
"Proof was asked for, proof was given. If the proof is somehow unacceptable, then by all means, let's have the evidence showing it to be wrong"
For the last time and for the love of God. The evidence is in the eye of the beholder. If Capt Jim can come on here and say he's flown with a 400/100 FSA ab initio guy and thought he deserved to be in the seat (though they don't meet the min standard he says is necessary to even get hired at XJT). Then we can at least agree to disagree. As it is now, there is a misunderstanding between FSA's website and Capt Jim's mins to get hired at XJT. I'm not sure what the truth is........
As is we got Bog saying he's flown with a 400 hour guy that was lacking at Mesa.
I can tell you I believe a 400 hour guy would be lacking to sit next to me at a 121 airline (simply my opinion based on my years of experience)
So there you have it. Nothing to be proven on either side. It's opinion based on one's experience and background.
The day we have Regional Capts coming on here saying how great 250 to 400 F/O's are to fly with and how this industry can benefit from a guy paying to directly enter this career at super low time is the day I'll THINK about changing my mind.
Until then.....have a nice day
For the last time and for the love of God. The evidence is in the eye of the beholder. If Capt Jim can come on here and say he's flown with a 400/100 FSA ab initio guy and thought he deserved to be in the seat (though they don't meet the min standard he says is necessary to even get hired at XJT). Then we can at least agree to disagree. As it is now, there is a misunderstanding between FSA's website and Capt Jim's mins to get hired at XJT. I'm not sure what the truth is........
As is we got Bog saying he's flown with a 400 hour guy that was lacking at Mesa.
I can tell you I believe a 400 hour guy would be lacking to sit next to me at a 121 airline (simply my opinion based on my years of experience)
So there you have it. Nothing to be proven on either side. It's opinion based on one's experience and background.
The day we have Regional Capts coming on here saying how great 250 to 400 F/O's are to fly with and how this industry can benefit from a guy paying to directly enter this career at super low time is the day I'll THINK about changing my mind.
Until then.....have a nice day
DE727UPS
Well-Known Member
"if your breaking in a 250 hour RJ FO, or a 4000 hour 1500 hour Turbine PIC 777 FO, you're still going to have a disparity of competence"
That's the best you can do? Are you saying these two guys come anywhere close to being equal in their disparity of competence? Equal in what they contribute to the operation of a 121 jet?
That's the best you can do? Are you saying these two guys come anywhere close to being equal in their disparity of competence? Equal in what they contribute to the operation of a 121 jet?
Jim, I would word it differently. I believe that the low-time F/O is less safe, not necessarily unsafe. I don't know if there are stats to quantify "less safe", but I do know from personal experience that there is a difference between what a low-time guy can bring to the table to help a Captain when compared to someone with more experience.CapnJim said:
It is the difference between a liability and an asset. A low-low-time F/O may not be a liability, but he sure isn't the asset that a Captain might want to have when the chips are down.
B767Driver
New Member
I don't expect that this post will contribute much to this discussion, or Jim's requirement for more data, but I think it illustrates the desirability for a battle tested new hire.
Several years ago...back in the mid to late 90's, ATA had a new hire F/O on a 727 OE. The F/E screwed up the pressurization panel...I don't know exactly what he did...but ended up slowly depressurizing the airplane at cruise altitude. The Captain and F/E slowly went unconscious...the new hire F/O, although groggy, was able to recognize the situation...don his O2 mask and execute a descent and land safely. If it were not for the F/O, there would have been another Payne Stewart type accident.
I have to wonder, had the new hire F/O not had several thousand hours of experience...or even more questionable if he only had a few hundred hours in the air in anything...would he have been less likely to diagnose the situation and take charge to land safely?
Several years ago...back in the mid to late 90's, ATA had a new hire F/O on a 727 OE. The F/E screwed up the pressurization panel...I don't know exactly what he did...but ended up slowly depressurizing the airplane at cruise altitude. The Captain and F/E slowly went unconscious...the new hire F/O, although groggy, was able to recognize the situation...don his O2 mask and execute a descent and land safely. If it were not for the F/O, there would have been another Payne Stewart type accident.
I have to wonder, had the new hire F/O not had several thousand hours of experience...or even more questionable if he only had a few hundred hours in the air in anything...would he have been less likely to diagnose the situation and take charge to land safely?
CapnJim
Well-Known Member
SteveC- no way I'm rewording that, nor am I going to hazard an opinion on the distinction between "less safe" and "unsafe". The argument is that low-timers are unsafe. It's starting to look like they're not. What a Captian my or may not want is germane to the discussion. The argument is safe vs. unsafe, as regards low-time 121 jet FOs.
B767- That's my point exactly. You have to wonder, because there's nothing but anecdotal evidence in there. Are you suggesting that a low-timer would not have the sense to put on an oxygen mask? What kind of training do you think these guys are getting? I could present the stories about low-timers outdoing the high time guys, and then suggest that it's the old-timers slowing reflexes that account for it, but I would be no more correct. That's the fallacy of anecdotal evidence.
DE727, again you're confusing anectotal evidence for fact. And again, only a piece of my original quote is used for refute. The entire paragraph, 727, and what I am saying, is this:
1. "This guy said one time..." (anectodal evidence)
2. "I know it's true, because I think it is." (opinion)
3. "I'm better at 2500 hours than I was at 250, therefore a 250 hour pilot is unsafe." (This, lacking data, is conjecture otherwise known as spurious relationship.)
This last one is the most treacherous, because it replaces fact with opinion, and does so by way of emotional appeal. However appealing it seems, it is still logical fallacy. Consider Homer Simpson's bear patrol...
For my part I was challenged to compile and present data as fairly and objectively as I could, and did so. For my pains the data was rejected with no real counter argument other than the tired (and inevitable) cliches against statistical evidence, ignoring the fact that statistics were demanded in the first place. Which gives us:
4. Prove it! Give data! <Here ya go!> That's not good enough! We need more data, although we are disinclined to say why and will present no data of our own, but look here at 1, 2, 3, 2, 1, 3, and 2! Ha!
Every post sawing away at arguments one through four only serves to weaken the argument that low-time 121 FOs are inherently dangerous, so by all means, keep 'em coming. I'm glad I've switched to the number system so that I can just post the numeral corresponding to the logical fallacy presented, and save a lot of typing.
Food for thought:
Main Entry: spe·cious
Pronunciation: 'spE-sh&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, visually pleasing, from Latin speciosus beautiful, plausible, from species
1. Obsolete : SHOWY
2. Apparently attractive, true or correct, but not actually so : deceptive.
Please consider this word before you post yet another argument 1-4. And before you try it, no, my argument is not specious, because it is not apprently attractive, true, or correct. It seems illogical, impossible, and incorrect. It is unappealing, and distasteful. But nonetheless, it is actually so.
B767- That's my point exactly. You have to wonder, because there's nothing but anecdotal evidence in there. Are you suggesting that a low-timer would not have the sense to put on an oxygen mask? What kind of training do you think these guys are getting? I could present the stories about low-timers outdoing the high time guys, and then suggest that it's the old-timers slowing reflexes that account for it, but I would be no more correct. That's the fallacy of anecdotal evidence.
DE727, again you're confusing anectotal evidence for fact. And again, only a piece of my original quote is used for refute. The entire paragraph, 727, and what I am saying, is this:
The opposing data? Variations on:CapnJim said:
1. "This guy said one time..." (anectodal evidence)
2. "I know it's true, because I think it is." (opinion)
3. "I'm better at 2500 hours than I was at 250, therefore a 250 hour pilot is unsafe." (This, lacking data, is conjecture otherwise known as spurious relationship.)
This last one is the most treacherous, because it replaces fact with opinion, and does so by way of emotional appeal. However appealing it seems, it is still logical fallacy. Consider Homer Simpson's bear patrol...
For my part I was challenged to compile and present data as fairly and objectively as I could, and did so. For my pains the data was rejected with no real counter argument other than the tired (and inevitable) cliches against statistical evidence, ignoring the fact that statistics were demanded in the first place. Which gives us:
4. Prove it! Give data! <Here ya go!> That's not good enough! We need more data, although we are disinclined to say why and will present no data of our own, but look here at 1, 2, 3, 2, 1, 3, and 2! Ha!
Every post sawing away at arguments one through four only serves to weaken the argument that low-time 121 FOs are inherently dangerous, so by all means, keep 'em coming. I'm glad I've switched to the number system so that I can just post the numeral corresponding to the logical fallacy presented, and save a lot of typing.
Food for thought:
Main Entry: spe·cious
Pronunciation: 'spE-sh&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, visually pleasing, from Latin speciosus beautiful, plausible, from species
1. Obsolete : SHOWY
2. Apparently attractive, true or correct, but not actually so : deceptive.
Please consider this word before you post yet another argument 1-4. And before you try it, no, my argument is not specious, because it is not apprently attractive, true, or correct. It seems illogical, impossible, and incorrect. It is unappealing, and distasteful. But nonetheless, it is actually so.
NJA_Capt
Well-Known Member
This is a good illustration of how you see things the way you want to see things. Who says that "run aground" means it's sitting on a beach? In my eyes your ship hit an underwater reef and sunk. He was somewhere he shouldn't have been. Or maybe, he sank in the open ocean trying to fix something his low time FO did while he was looking the other way?CapnJim said:Read again- I said 'going down' not 'run aground'. Perhaps this same mistake led to your previous misquotation?
You were given facts (NASR) and you discounted it (cause you didn't agree)
You presented something you considered facts which we discounted because it was not an objective comparison.
You have been given first hand data from people who flew with or as a low time pilot and you discounted that.
It is obvious that your opinion is the only one that matters. We all know that numbers can be presented to suit anyone's best interest, that is why we all dropped the "numbers based" argument and moved on to real life situations. And try as you like, you will never change the mind of the people who have personal experiences with the issue.
Consider this one last point. You are looking in the present and showing current numbers that "nothing bad has happened" and claiming safe practice. We are looking beyond the present and looking at the future. We want things changed BEFORE something bad happens. You view is typical of society today. Safety issues come up but don't get any attention until someone gets killed. Then suddenly there is great interest in "making it safer."
So good luck. Many of us can see the train wreck coming. The powers that be decry "can't happen, we've trained for that and statistics show we are safe. They usually do right until a crash.
B767Driver
New Member
NJA_Capt said:
This is true Jim. Given data on accident rates for low timers...you did discount it. It's going to be hard to find data on low timers under the supervision of a pilot in command.
Same thing with a student pilot. He is not ready yet for solo flight...but under the direction of a CFI you will never have data otherwise...as the supervising PIC is picking up for the lack of proficiency in the up and coming not yet qualified student. My guess is the data for a dual cross country flight is much safer than for solo cross country flight.