Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Are European pilots better than American?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
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.
 
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

'
 
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.
 
C601 said:
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!
 
Last edited:
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!
 
Another difference is the Euro's don't generally have a four year degree, hence the 12+ Theory tests they must endure....
 
Rez O. Lewshun said:
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.

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

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.
 
G21Agoose said:
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
 
G21Agoose said:
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.
 
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.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top