There's been so much round and round about this "subject" that I'm not even absolutely sure what the specific disagreement is about. I went back to the beginning of the thread and started over.
Post #14 January 11th, 2006, 21:29 (CST)
CapnJim said:
I reject the notion that a 1000 hour airline pilot is significantly 'safer' than a 250 hour one.
OK, I think that's it. On the one hand, we have those who feel that FOs with 1000 hours are
safer than those who have 250 hours. After all, the post that begin this thread expressed amazement that a pilot could get an airline job with such low time, correct? On the other hand, we have the opposing position that 250 hour FOs are
just as safe as 1000 hour FOs.
OK. So, could we focus on that, or at least alert the media when you change the subject? It's not "FOs with 250 hours are
UNSAFE," it's "FOs with 250 hours are
LESS SAFE than those with 100 hours."
Now, CapnJim wants data, statistics, numbers, cold hard facts before he'll agree with such an assertion. In fact, he has provided his own collection of numbers, and an interpretation thereof, to prove the contrary. Mind you, the numbers he presented were collected from NTSB records. What does CapnJim have to say today about NTSB data????
CapnJim said:
I caught the paragraph that read
Please not (sic) that these are raw numbers, and have not been adjusted for exposure. Neither the NTSB nor the FAA 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 specific group of pilots with a similar experience level.
It would seem, CapnJim, that the caveat you cite to discredit the ASRS reports applies equally to the data you presented earlier.
So, where does that leave us?
CapnJim said:
Unfortunately it looks like there's no such data.
Actually, all it means is we haven't found such data, yet. It doesn't mean the data does not exist.
CapnJim said:
As tempting as it is to say that low-timers in the cockpit are unsafe, there's just no evidence to back that theory up.
That's not exactly true, either. You have seen no statistically significant numbers to support that proposition, but we HAVE been presented evidence. The fact that you reject all other forms of evidence than statistics is just your own hangup.
Imagine yourself as the Chief Pilot of Wonder Air. A Captain comes in to your office to complain about an FO that he thinks is unsafe. No, wait, let's not pick on FOs, let's turn it around the other way. A young FO comes in to your office to tell you about the Captain he has spent the last threes days with. He recounts seven seperate events where he felt the Captain compromised the safety of the flight, and appeals to you to do something to prevent this Captain from hurting or killing someone in the future.
Will you answer him, "I'm sorry son, but I have no statistically meaningful data upon which to base any action. Please come back when you have some data points."? Why, of course not. Will you say, "I am embarrassed for you, young man, that you would come in here and make such a ludicrous charge against this fine Captain, and all based on nothing more than first-hand experience."? I hope not. Will you say, "Interesting story, lad, but I can't imagine taking action based solely on your anectdotal evidence."? Don't be ridiculous, of course you wouldn't. Based upon the first-hand, eye-witness experience of the FO, you would at the very least launch an investigation into the practices and behavior of this Captain. It would be irresponsible of you not to.
The point of your trip to the Chief Pilot's office??? There is more to base data on than just statistics. Judgment and experience, common sense and logic, these have a place in the process as well. You cannot simply reject them all.
How about this slant:
CapnJim said:
Moreover, as this is a relatively new phenomenon, good old-fashioned "horse sense" won't fit the bill either.
The "new phenomenon" argument can be used to explain the lack of statistical data, as well. And you could find yourself in an impossible situation if you rely soely upon statistics, ignoring all other meaningful input, to determine the safety of an action that has never occurred. For example, let's say I want to drive my Bronco off the Hernando Desoto Bridge over the Mississippi River. Now, as far as I know, there is no meaningful data that will indicate whether my Bronco will fly when it leaves the deck of the bridge, but my assertion is that it will fly, and I will be able to land safely on the Arkansas side and circumvent the wait behind the traffic jam on the bridge. In fact, I don't think there is any data on ANY Broncos driving off that bridge, perhaps no Fords, and maybe not any motorized vehicles at all.
Oh, you just can't wait to tell me my Bronco will most surely fall directly to the water below, accelerating at the rate of - - remember that number from high school??
Sorry, Charlie. I want statistics, hard data. Show me how many Broncos have fallen straight down, and how many have flown to the shore. I don't need logic, I don't need experience, I don't need judgment, and common sense is right out. I want NUMBERS!
(Yeah, I'll get my number as soon as the CG passes over the edge of the bridge, right?
)
If it hasn't happened before, there won't be statistics. While I don't agree that low-time FOs is a uniquely new phenomenon, if it were, you'd be asking for something that could not exist. The military routinely puts low-time pilots in the right seat of heavy metal. I wouldn't compare their "low time" with the 250 hour academy wonders, but there is a parallel. Ask the guys that have flown in the left seat with those guys who are safer, who are more proficient. Wanna take bets?
CapnJim said:
I'm still open to any evidence not based on anecdote, opinion, or conjecture, but I don't think I'll get them.
If we're going to condemn an entire group of pilots, lets concentrate on the real reasons, instead of trying to attack a non-existent saftey concern.
How about judgment and experience? Would you be open to those? And let's not twist the argument to serve your answer. Before you can assert that the safety concern is non-existent, you must first prove that it doesn't exist. You haven't done that. Ahhh, but you say the burden of proof is on the opponent's shoulders? Not in this thread, because it was YOU that in Post #14 rejected the assertion. If you want to shed the burden of proof, you must begin your own thread proposing the opposite.
Oh, wait... I think you might have changed your mind along the way here... let's take a look at your SECOND post in the thread:
Post #18 January 11th, 2006, 21:40 (CST)
CapnJim said:
Every ears-wet jet FO is worthless for a while.
I guess that settles, it. We all agree
.
