dosbo

The military also has a much more indepth training program with higher expectations of the student as well as a selection process that eleminates most applicaints prior to being allowed to enter the program. There is no comparison between military and civilian training when you compare a low time military pilot with a low time civilian pilot.

deltabound

Relax, skippy. This is not a criticism of regionals. I happen to think that 300 hour pilots are eminently qualified to fly high performance aircraft from day one if properly trained. And I can tell you, that makes me a part of a very, very tiny minority among "legacy" pilots.


"Some of the most difficult routes and grueling schedules are flown by pilots with the least experience and training."

However, it is a statement of fact. As is the article's reference to the comparatively high number of incidents/accidents/fatalities per 100,000 flights when you stack regionals vs. majors. I think it's reasonable to assume there might be a correlation between experience/training/poor schedules/challenging routes and some recent high-profile incidents.

The "solution" is complex, and Congress tends to be a very blunt instrument.

742Dash

As I have said earlier in this thread, it is not so much the low time pilots being hired. It is upgrading them in 3 years in operations that lack leadership, role models and cultural experience.

Yes, the military produces low time “new hires”, but they are closely watched and mentored in their units. Yes, the European airlines have cadet pilots, but look at who is sitting to the left of them. And in both cases look at the depth of experience in the operation as a whole

brianb

Whats your definition of "high performance"? Cessna 152,172? You must have been a great instructor to have this kind of faith in 300hr pilots.

robthree

How about an F/A-18? How about an A340?

If I'm not mistaken Hornet drivers head to the fleet around that point in their careers.

Cathay Pacific "Cadets" are also strapping in for revenue service around that time too.

I wasn't ready at 300 hours, but I wasn't in that kind of program. But its not unreasonable to think there is a way to manufacture 300 hour pilots who are ready.

I wouldn't think its more cost effective than part 61 training and CFI'ing to 1500 hours, but that's another discussion.

iPilot

Regarding 300 hour Hornet or Cathay pilots..

It's all about the training. Sure if we all had military style flight training we'd be Aces at 300 hours, but we don't.

Frankly it would be an unbelievable undertaking to revamp the way we train pilots in the US to be that kind of system. It would undermine lots of small business FBOs and even major Universities that have set up good businesses training pilots.

Is this system bad? Well not really. It's just set up so that you get your real experience from the field after graduation. It was never designed for a pilot to walk out of Embry-Riddle or ATP and into a 90 seat jet. Let alone into a jet with a captain who's only been on property for a year and a half!

So we really have two options, revamp the ENTIRE training system which would not only cost a fortune to the taxpayers and pilots-to-be, but also greatly destabilize the little corner of the economy that is supported by all this.

The ATP rule is much easier to swallow. Training continues as is but there is a higher barrier to getting into transport-category jets. Pilots will get their training the good old fashioned way through instructing, cargo charter, etc before they can take the reins at an airline. Hopefully by doing so it will shift the ballence of supply/demand so airlines will have to compete much more for qualified applicants making the job better for everyone in the long term. And all it will take is one line of legislation. A lot more bang for your buck, if you ask me.

CaptainNameless

At some point in the future new pilots coming up though the civilian flight training system are simply going to run out of the available means (dual given) to secure the required hours for an ATP. There will not be enough students to go around for the number of people who will want to get ATPs.

OK, some new pilots will go through banner-towing, aerial photo, VFR charter, sight-seeing or whatever, but the majority will need a job as a CFI. They will need the students to to buy them the hours they need to get through the aviation career wasteland that exists between 250 to 1500 hours. If they teach pro-pilot trainees, that means EVERY single new CFI who wants (NEEDS) to get the ATP to go to the airlines is going to need to train about 7-10 people from Private to Comm-Inst. level. (about 120-180 hrs. dual given each).

Does anyone else see the problem with this training Ponzi-math? Even if you factor in the non-professional "Cirrus Owner" flight students (which are far less than in the past due to the high costs of flying as a hobby) there is just NO WAY there will be enough students to supply every new CFI with the hours needed for the ATP.

I think it's a great idea to require more experience of airline new-hires, but the reality will be that the traditional Ponzi scheme hour-building system will not have enough students at the bottom of the pyramid to supply the top.

The airlines are going to have to either pay some kind of financial aid to new pilots, or lobby congess to lower the 1500 hour minimum. There are good reasons so many airlines across the world use some form of ab-initio training, and those reasons are becoming more the case in the U.S. Will be interesting to see what happens.

Sniper

I believe they're all 'cruise pilots'. They sit and watch the autopilot in cruise only (no take-offs and landings), and there's a Captain in the left seat who is there to mentor them, just in case anything goes wrong while the 'A team' is dozing.

FlyJSH

I LOVE the sound of that "Ponzi-math." There are plenty of pilots available right now.... if the price is right. Assuming your theory is correct, after everyone is called back, how would the airlines get more pilots? By attracting more Chieftain, -400 series, and Caravan pilots away from jobs that currently pay more.

Unfortunately, I do not believe "Ponzi-Math" will ever come to fruition. As the number of airliners in developing countries increase, the number of foreign students training here will increase.

deltabound

My experience, and my opinion, of course.

I'm not particularly interested in getting dragged into the whole military vs. 3000 hr 152 pattern jockeys vs. Riddle vs. yadda yadda yadda. It's been done to death. But I understand flightinfo loves a good flame war on this topic, so head there for battle if you really want.

Fact is, planes are simply getting easier and easier to fly as they take the pilot out of the "hands on" flying portion and put him in the "systems management", JUDGMENT role.

If anything, I'm more biased towards newer pilots that have had previous careers that required them to exercise independent judgment. (Cops are perfect, small businessmen and any military service, etc.).

While there are exceptions, I'd also say that there's a certain age range that's perfect. Age 21 . . .not so good. Age 30-ish . . . much better. Age 50 . . . those can be some cantankerous old bastids (I should know!)