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