Are European pilots better than American?

[24 carat]

Not a wind-up...just wondering why in Europe you can fly a jet with 250 hrs, whilst in the good old US of A you often need more than 2000hrs before you can even fly a King Air.

As far as I can tell it is the insurance requirements that won't let you fly a jet with 250 hrs. With your Commercial licence and a the required type training you legally could fly a jet at 250 hrs, even in the US. So what is it about insurance companies that they are willing to insure Euro weenies with 250 hrs and not US pilots?

Where is the sense in that?

 

[sleddriver71]

Perhaps there is not nearly as many pilots to choose from. It is very expensive to flight train in Europe. I suspect that they have to take what they can get over there.

 

[Lead Sled]

You won't two 250 hour European wunder pilots together in a jet. The 250 hour ab initio pilot is little more than a cushion warming gear extender flap retractor.

It's not the FAA who determines who can fly what when. It's the insurance companies.

'Sled

 

[24 carat]

Well, Lead Sled, that is exactly my point. Why will insurance companies let European wonder pilots fly jets with much lower time than they do in the US?

Do they know something we don't?

And it is not because there aren't as many pilots around: from what I hear, in Europe, just like in the US, there are many unemployed pilots.

 

[Cardinal]

Well, Lead Sled, that is exactly my point. Why will insurance companies let European wonder pilots fly jets with much lower time than they do in the US?

Do they know something we don't?

And it is not because there aren't as many pilots around: from what I hear, in Europe, just like in the US, there are many unemployed pilots.

When these 250 hour pilots are in jets its due to very specific circumstances. These pilots have been aptitude selected for their cadet programs from a huge pool of applicants, and trained from hour one to the SOPs of the the sponsoring carrier. The equipment is generally more complex than your average US flight school (remember those Bonanzas in Trade-A-Plane a few years back with full EFIS? They were Lufthansas). Then they gain experience under very close watch, often being sent to the long-haul fleet to figure things out initially. Further, attaining the frozen ATPL from the JAA is a nightmarish scenario of 12 huge, hard tests that the US pilot doesn't come close to seeing anywhere in their career. For discussion ad nauseum on ab iniio and cadet programs check the "Wannabes" forum on www.pprune.org

I don't personally agree with cadet schemes, but at the same time I don't fear that a BA 777 is going to come crashing through my house because of it.

 

[jtf]

It's simple supply and demand. In the US it is cheap (compared to most of the rest of the world) to learn how to fly and there are lots of jobs compared to the rest of the world also. Plenty of guys and gals with tons of experience. Why should the insurence companies in the US allow 250 hour jet pilots- that would be bad business for them. When I was an EMB-145 captain I got to fly with multiple 500 hour idiots (and plenty of guys who at least had a clue with 500 hours) and I can honestly say that I might as well have been single pilot- and probably would have been safer without the bad decision making going on next to me if I was single pilot- on a regular basis with new guys and gals coming on line even after IOE. It comes down to experience and that can't be taught in a book or in a class. You can most definitely learn from other's mistakes without making them yourself and I am all for that, but at 250 hours you do not have the experience to do the job safely in my (and the insurence company's) opinion. I don't care if you are "a natural"- without experience you don't know enough that if the captain isn't really on his or her toes you will get into trouble some time without a bit of luck.

If wages and careers in this industry keep going down the toilet like they have been for the last 4 1/2 years here in the US and there is eventually an actual pilot shortage, the insurence companies might actually end up lowering the requirements, but I hope they don't for simple safety's sake. I fully admit that the Europeans might very well have more fact-based/ ground learned aeronautical knowledge at 250 hours since the JAR requires all kinds of dificult knowledge tests way beyond the FARs, but that isn't true experience. Go spend at least 1000 hours dodging death while instructing or flying cargo part 135 and I guarentee you are going to have seen and probably "learned the hard way" quite a few things that you should probably know before flying a large airplane full of passengers. At least if you make a critical mistake in the learning process there you aren't taking out a big airplane full of people in the process.

 

[MAJIC9]

Now you see what OJT really stands for.

Anyways, it gets worse. They're now toying with the idea to create a new type of licence that would put you in the right seat of a jet with about 60-70 hours TOTAL... Gear monkey just got a new meaning.

 

[metrodriver]

At the US company I fly for we have 250 hr pilots flying a wide-body. Some worked in dispatch, as mechanic or flight engineer. If they do well on a sim eval, they can go to the cockpit.
Part of the european training is that the student gets 40 hrs(?) in a full flight sim (B737, A320) as part of their commercial license training. That makes a big difference compared to boring holes in the sky in a c-152 like here in the US. Now we get 700hr guys flying RJ's in the right seat. Between their CPL and the first jet job is 450 hrs puddling around in a c-152 / 172 as a cfi, not much of a preparation for something 20 times as heavy and 3 times as fast.
Another difference is the book-knowledge. European ATP is a lot harder than the US version. Lot more studying required. ATP groundschool takes close to a year and involves many subjects, each with its own exam. Most of this stuff we will never know, or care about knowing, or we'll find out when it is time for groundschool for that first jet job

 

[aussiefly]

Well I can sort of feel qualified to comment on Australian pilots Vs US pilots being that i'm an aussie.

In my opinion the actual flight training in the U.S is better and tends to produce better sticks upon certification. Whereas the flight training in oz I dont believe is as good or comprehensive and also takes longer (as usually schedulling is an issue and it spreads your time out).

Having said that, I think the theory component in OZ is more comprehensive and the exams are tougher.

I guess ultimately its a little like comparing apples to oranges as the hour requirements for a CPL in oz is only 150hrs.

Anyway, ultimately it comes down to attitude and to some degree what flight school you went to but if I had my choice of flying with a low time yank or a low time aussie (say 250hrs) I would take the american anyday.

just my 2 cents.

 

[Lead Sled]

Well, Lead Sled, that is exactly my point. Why will insurance companies let European wonder pilots fly jets with much lower time than they do in the US?

Do they know something we don't?

And it is not because there aren't as many pilots around: from what I hear, in Europe, just like in the US, there are many unemployed pilots.

When it comes to insurance, all it takes is $$$. The training programs are the way they are because of the candidate pool that they must draw from.

'Sled

 

[Hadhafang]

Just a thought......I think there are some 250 hour pilots here that could be trained to fly a jet. (How many of them do on their flight sims at home. Just teach them some more systems. Note - I'm not a jet pilot so take what I say with a grain of salt.) There are also some higher time pilots that should be no where near a jet. Hours don't make the pilot.

Sure insurance determines hours, but don't Europeans have insurance also? I think the main difference is liability. Lawsuits are probably not as rampant and commonplace in Europe as they are here. American insurance compnies really have to cover themselves from litigation, hence the higher requirements.

 

[Lead Sled]

Flying a jet at 250 hours is nothing new or special. If you want to do it, just go visit your friendly local armed forces recruiter. The reason it isn't more common here is that it doesn't need to be. Most employers want someone with some "seasoning" before they hand them the keys to their shiney jet.

'Sled

'

 

[C601]

Well the question is, how many European airlines have had a crash because of a 250hr pilot in the cockpit.

The answer is none.

Many moons ago I did the a CAA CPL/IR/ME with a Frozen ATPL after 13 exams and 225hrs of flying @ Oxford same course as the British Airways Cadets. Right now there a Many Airlines in Europe that will hire you with 250hrs 20ME > and straight to been a FO on a 737 or A320. Its not a unsual thing to see.

 

[G21Agoose]

Well the question is, how many European airlines have had a crash because of a 250hr pilot in the cockpit.

The answer is none.

Many moons ago I did the a CAA CPL/IR/ME with a Frozen ATPL after 13 exams and 225hrs of flying @ Oxford same course as the British Airways Cadets. Right now there a Many Airlines in Europe that will hire you with 250hrs 20ME > and straight to been a FO on a 737 or A320. Its not a unsual thing to see.

The ab initio training in Europe is of a very high standard and takes over a year to complete training full time. Oxford Air Training and British Aerospace Flying school trained pilots from 0 to LOFT training. Airlines like BA and Cathay Pacific sponsored these programs. A frozen ATPL means you have passed the exams but don't yet have the flight time (1500hrs). This training though does not make you a better pilot but a well trained pilot. Nothing beats experience in real world conditions.

So the answer to your question is no, we're not better pilots, but we are better looking!

 

[Purpledog]

Just a thought......I think there are some 250 hour pilots here that could be trained to fly a jet.

Sure there are. In Navy flight training your strapping on your first jet at a whopping 80ish hours. We had a Brit exchange pilot in our squadron for a while. He was studying for his ATP. I looked at the materials and it was Greek to me. Given, much of it is stuff you would never, ever use, but it definitely was much more difficult than our Gleim book. Incidently, he was an average pilot, above average throwing back pints!

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Another difference is the Euro's don't generally have a four year degree, hence the 12+ Theory tests they must endure....

 

[Kenny]

Another difference is the Euro's don't generally have a four year degree, hence the 12+ Theory tests they must endure....

A little misleading; they tend to speaicialise earlier with the subjects they take in high school, hence their degrees don't take 4 years. Bachelors degrees are 3 years and Masters are 4 years. Not because their degrees have lees content just that some is already covered before they get to University. At least that's the case in the UK. All my friends flying commercially in the EU have either Engineering or Science degrees.

Well I can sort of feel qualified to comment on Australian pilots Vs US pilots being that i'm an aussie.

In my opinion the actual flight training in the U.S is better and tends to produce better sticks upon certification. Whereas the flight training in oz I dont believe is as good or comprehensive and also takes longer (as usually schedulling is an issue and it spreads your time out).

Having said that, I think the theory component in OZ is more comprehensive and the exams are tougher.

I guess ultimately its a little like comparing apples to oranges as the hour requirements for a CPL in oz is only 150hrs.

Anyway, ultimately it comes down to attitude and to some degree what flight school you went to but if I had my choice of flying with a low time yank or a low time aussie (say 250hrs) I would take the american anyday.

just my 2 cents.

Mate, try doing your Command Multi IR in Australia. It was by far and away the hardest flight test I've ever done. And that includes the two 121 check rides I've done here in the US.

 

[Lead Sled]

This training though does not make you a better pilot but a well trained pilot. Nothing beats experience in real world conditions.

So the answer to your question is no, we're not better pilots, but we are better looking!

Well said. As for the good looking part, I'll have to give you that - you must have met the guy I fly with.

'Sled

 

[C601]

The ab initio training in Europe is of a very high standard and takes over a year to complete training full time. Oxford Air Training and British Aerospace Flying school trained pilots from 0 to LOFT training. Airlines like BA and Cathay Pacific sponsored these programs. A frozen ATPL means you have passed the exams but don't yet have the flight time (1500hrs). This training though does not make you a better pilot but a well trained pilot. Nothing beats experience in real world conditions.

So the answer to your question is no, we're not better pilots, but we are better looking!

Your 100% correct, If I had the between the 1st 12weeks of ground school 9pm-5pm or 100hrs of flying, I would of taken the 100hrs of flying.

But I think one factor that bridges the gap between experience Vs well trained, is the instructors who train you. Nearly all our instructors where Ex Royal Air Force 20+ year Pilots/Navs. So from there expericence you learn alot, so you make mistakes (hopefully) other low time pilots make due to little experience.

 

[sleddriver71]

Wow, it is really hard reading some of these posts. Some of you people are just plain illiterate. At least read over your messages before posting them.