bafanguy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Posts
- 2,530
This issue of pilot training/experience vs suitability for airline hiring is interesting and important. It has come up several times and is worth "discussing". The original comment launching this thread related to airline hiring and, as that's the only experience I have, I'll try confining myself to that. 100% of my career is behind me...0% ahead so maybe I can give a look-back perspective. If my opinion isn't to your liking, at least you didn't spend much getting it so, no sweat. Nothing personal from my end.
This is an issue where it seems hard to have a rational, non-judgemental discussion based on calm assessment rather than histrionics. When you see comments about adding extra fuel due to a low-time FO, not putting one's family on board, incapacitated captain, or detailing a list of errors made by a lowtimer, you might be up against a mindset precluding any meaningful debate. I'll try to avoid as much of that as possible as the debate is worth the effort.
With the above said, two overall things come to mind. The first is unrelated to the issue of suitability for hiring, but I can't help myself. I'd guess most carriers would prefer hiring the 2000hr pilot ? If they're hiring 200hr people, perhaps the supply of willing 2000hr guys is below the demand to fill cockpit seats ? Pilots don't set hiring policy and don't affect the situation beyond just refusing to be an applicant in the first place. Perhaps what's happened is the 2000hr guys got better deals leaving the jobs open for the 200 hr guys. The seats WILL be filled, with the only variable being by whom. It's unlikely there's a shortage of 2000+hr pilots. Just a thought, and definitely an aside, making NO effort to address the quality of the job itself. That's another issue.
Second is the meat of it all. I've noticed a couple of people with high avatar flight time (>10,000) who don't seem to have a problem with lowtimers and I'm getting ready to agree.
Learning any complicated task is a matter of a willing, apt student and an experienced, dedicated, knowledgeable instructor tied together by a thorough, properly-administered syllabus demanding a high level of demonstrated performance from both. This same thing applies to both a training program AND life on the line after training. You can find this at work in the military ( the Gold Standard ) and many civilian organizations.
The training world, with its inherent limitations, we all understand. Post training world is the organization for whom one flies and the part at issue here. The student becomes a FO, the instructor is now the captain ( yes, that's part of your job, mentoring the next generation of captains whether you, or they, like it or not ), and the syllabus is the company flt ops dept with all its policy, procedure, and demand for proper conduct/judgement/performance/accountability from everyone. This last part is the foundation of practically everything else.
So, I see no reason why a lowtimer, properly trained, operating in an environment of a professional dept, working with experienced, knowledgeable captains, willing to share their experience/teach by example(if nothing else), can't be just fine in an airline job. One learns to be the captain by being the FO; sorry, that's just the way it is. If one entered indoc feeling he had all he needed and was just there to fill in a few details, that's the guy I'd worry about regardless of his experience. Can't upgrade lowtimers fast enough ? That's not your problem; the suits will deal with that. The issue is the suitability of a lowtimer to function within the system. Will he make mistakes ? You bet...you did and so did I; using that as a reason to pronounce a pilot unsuitable just won't fly.
Regardless, since everyone gets experience one hour at a time, the issue becomes where, under what circumstances, and with what result. Nobody is born knowing this stuff; it's learned, with the idea being to avoid paying too dear a price for the knowledge. The lowtimer, under the right conditions, can be very well suited to step into airline flying. This has been proven for decades by a number of established airlines.
You just may have to step up and be a part of making it work, Captain...someone did it for you.
This is an issue where it seems hard to have a rational, non-judgemental discussion based on calm assessment rather than histrionics. When you see comments about adding extra fuel due to a low-time FO, not putting one's family on board, incapacitated captain, or detailing a list of errors made by a lowtimer, you might be up against a mindset precluding any meaningful debate. I'll try to avoid as much of that as possible as the debate is worth the effort.
With the above said, two overall things come to mind. The first is unrelated to the issue of suitability for hiring, but I can't help myself. I'd guess most carriers would prefer hiring the 2000hr pilot ? If they're hiring 200hr people, perhaps the supply of willing 2000hr guys is below the demand to fill cockpit seats ? Pilots don't set hiring policy and don't affect the situation beyond just refusing to be an applicant in the first place. Perhaps what's happened is the 2000hr guys got better deals leaving the jobs open for the 200 hr guys. The seats WILL be filled, with the only variable being by whom. It's unlikely there's a shortage of 2000+hr pilots. Just a thought, and definitely an aside, making NO effort to address the quality of the job itself. That's another issue.
Second is the meat of it all. I've noticed a couple of people with high avatar flight time (>10,000) who don't seem to have a problem with lowtimers and I'm getting ready to agree.
Learning any complicated task is a matter of a willing, apt student and an experienced, dedicated, knowledgeable instructor tied together by a thorough, properly-administered syllabus demanding a high level of demonstrated performance from both. This same thing applies to both a training program AND life on the line after training. You can find this at work in the military ( the Gold Standard ) and many civilian organizations.
The training world, with its inherent limitations, we all understand. Post training world is the organization for whom one flies and the part at issue here. The student becomes a FO, the instructor is now the captain ( yes, that's part of your job, mentoring the next generation of captains whether you, or they, like it or not ), and the syllabus is the company flt ops dept with all its policy, procedure, and demand for proper conduct/judgement/performance/accountability from everyone. This last part is the foundation of practically everything else.
So, I see no reason why a lowtimer, properly trained, operating in an environment of a professional dept, working with experienced, knowledgeable captains, willing to share their experience/teach by example(if nothing else), can't be just fine in an airline job. One learns to be the captain by being the FO; sorry, that's just the way it is. If one entered indoc feeling he had all he needed and was just there to fill in a few details, that's the guy I'd worry about regardless of his experience. Can't upgrade lowtimers fast enough ? That's not your problem; the suits will deal with that. The issue is the suitability of a lowtimer to function within the system. Will he make mistakes ? You bet...you did and so did I; using that as a reason to pronounce a pilot unsuitable just won't fly.
Regardless, since everyone gets experience one hour at a time, the issue becomes where, under what circumstances, and with what result. Nobody is born knowing this stuff; it's learned, with the idea being to avoid paying too dear a price for the knowledge. The lowtimer, under the right conditions, can be very well suited to step into airline flying. This has been proven for decades by a number of established airlines.
You just may have to step up and be a part of making it work, Captain...someone did it for you.
Last edited:
