Willing to ##### myself out!!!

[BobDDuck]

Just to throw fuel on the fire, the ONLY person in my newhire class that washed out was the 3000 TT pilot who had been flying Citations and King Airs. Does that prove anything? Nope... not at all.

[tonyw]

Originally Posted by NJA_Capt

The responsibility to provide safety data should be on the person saying that it is safe. Not on the general public to prove it is NOT safe.

The problem is, when you're dealing with such a miniscule sample of incidents, how do you draw any conclusions? How many commercial airline flights resulted in a fatality in the US last year?

You just can't draw conclusions with such a small sample. And thank God for that, because we definitely do not want a large enough sample to start to draw conclusions from!

[jtrain609]

Check it out guys.

On Saturday I start my first flight instructor job. In fact today I'm leaving to get to this job (which is on the east coast). To be very frank, I don't belong in the right seat of a 152 with a student that doesn't have a clue what's happening in the left. Sure, I'm qualified to do the job, I've even got more certificates than I need! And I think my training was top notch and that I'm about as well prepared to take this leap as I could be.

But it's still a leap.

There is going to be a steep learning curve for a while, and many people have told me that no matter what I do I'm going to make a mess of my first student trying to figure out how to instruct. But you know what? I'm hungry to learn how to do this gig right.

Fast forward a few years. The same thing is going to happen when I get to a regional. There is going to be a steep learning curve, and it's going to be a leap going from the kind of flying I've done to the kind of flying I'm about to do.

What seems to matter more than the number of hours you have is your willingness to learn. Yes, I agree fully that the more hours you have, the more experience you have and the better prepared you are to handle uncommon situations simply because you've been there before. But if you don't hit the ground running and you're not willing to try to soak in and learn everything you possibly can when you get to the next level you're dangerous, simply put.

Now before someone types off some heated reply, re-read this and think to yourself about when you really became an effective instructor. I know that nobody poped out of their initial ride and thought to themselves "Well, I know it all now, it's downhill from here." I can't imagine that feeling ever changes no matter what step you take up in this industry.

Also, I'm not a huge fan of low time pilots in RJ's. I think everybody should have to instructor for 1,000 hours before they move on. I say that sitting at 320 hours with my flight instructor certificates and thinking to myself, "I don't know how I'm going to handle students in a Cessna 152, how could anybody expect me to be able to fly a 50 seat jet around?" But what I REALLY don't like is low time pilots that think they know everything. At the same time, I'm not all for high time pilots with zero time in type and zero time in an aircraft that moves 5 times faster than their previous aircraft thinking that they are any better suited to handle any situation that is thrown at them. You've gotta be ready and willing to learn at every step in the game, and experience is no insulator for that.

Again, not trying to bag on anybody here, just reminding everyone that we've got to have our eyes and ears open no matter what step up we take or somebody is going to get hurt. I (personally) think that is the biggest safety problem we face as we move up. Maybe I'll have a different opinion in 5,000 hours.

[CapnJim]

Originally Posted by NJA_Capt

CapnJim, that is an extremely WEAK argument, and yet it keeps getting brought up. Everyone (beyond 5000 hrs) on here knows the "Well there is not data showing low time pilots are dangerous" argument is wrong. I don't need data showing poking a fork in my eye is dangerous to believe it.

Why not give 11 year olds a drivers licenses? Then someone could say 11 year olds are safe because 40 year olds have accidents too.

The responsibility to provide safety data should be on the person saying that it is safe. Not on the general public to prove it is NOT safe. You want us to believe you, show US proof that they are safe. And do NOT use the "military/foreign pilots at 200 hrs" garbage. Civilian/USA stats only. Apples and apples.

One reason you will not find valid data for your argument is that the "low timers" had their posterior saved from death/violation because of the guy in the other seat. You know....the guy with more experience.


Read this:
https://extranet.nasdac.faa.gov/pls/portal/STAGE.ASRS_BRIEF_REPORT?RPT_NBR=658727&AC_VAR=TRUE &RPRT_VAR=TRUE&ANMLY_VAR=TRUE&SYN_VAR=TRUE&NARR_VA R=TRUE&NARR_SRCH='low%20time'

Lemmie get this straight NJA, my argument is "WEAK" because your anecdotal evidence says it it?
And you're saying you're right and I'm wrong until I can come up with glowing reports about low time guys being safe? Reports only get filed when things go wrong, not when they go perfectly if you havent noticed. Apples to apples? After you compared a low-time commercially-rated pilot to an 11 year old? A fork in the eye? Are you kidding? And one ASAP report about some FO getting blasted for messing up a PRM approach proves exactly squat. The benchmark for what is safe and what is not safe is our FAA guidelines. If the low times were so dangerous, don't you think the Feds would have stepped up to the plate by now? If my argument is weak, I wouldn't set a feather on yours.

I'm not saying that 250 pilots are the greatest thing since sliced bread or anything, I'm just saying they're not the 'danger to the skies' guys like you make them out to be. Yes, of course a 1500/500 pilot is going to be better, safer, and more capapble in emergency. If I were PIC, would I rather have the more experienced guy? Of course I would. I'm not arguing against that. What I am arguing against is that the low time guys are unsafe. Clearly, they are not. You could declare almost anything you like to be unsafe, and when someone says "well, I really don't see any evidence that you're right..." you could come right back with "That's WEAK! Show me the evidence that I'm wrong!!!" and then storm off in an 8-cylinder huff.

Personally, I'm with John H. I'd like to see guys get hired with the kind of time that I had. But I'm also obvective enough to realize that that opinion is not based in statistical fact.

[tonyw]

Originally Posted by John Herreshoff

On Saturday I start my first flight instructor job. In fact today I'm leaving to get to this job (which is on the east coast). To be very frank, I don't belong in the right seat of a 152 with a student that doesn't have a clue what's happening in the left. Sure, I'm qualified to do the job, I've even got more certificates than I need! And I think my training was top notch and that I'm about as well prepared to take this leap as I could be.

I can help you solve that problem. Come down here and help me get my instrument rating. So there.

Heh heh heh. I'll be your guinea pig.

[Stone Cold]

I want to do a discovery flight...where are you located, JH?

[jtrain609]

Jersey, call me if Airnet sends you up that way.

[NJA_Capt]

Originally Posted by tonyw

You just can't draw conclusions with such a small sample.

By the same token, we can't claim it is a perfectly sound practice when most inadequacies in these low timers are either caught and corrected by the Captains or not reported.

Try out a couple of these, and remember for every one that is reported there are probably 20 that aren't. Very scary.

http://www.nasdac.faa.gov/portal/pag..._schema=PORTAL


Select: ASRS Database Query Tool

Type "low time" in the Narrative Search block, select Air Carrier and a date range and submit. Don't use too many years for the search, it is quite slow and there are A LOT of reports. One year at a time works better.

[Stone Cold]

Originally Posted by John Herreshoff

Jersey, call me if Airnet sends you up that way.

Will do. Surprisingly, I haven't been sent up there in quite a while. Been in MEM the past week, going to BHM this next week for a couple days, and LCK after that, and going to St Paul the following week. I'm gonna freeze my A$$ off.

[NJA_Capt]

Originally Posted by CapnJim

Yes, of course a 1500/500 pilot is going to be better, safer, and more capable in emergency. If I were PIC, would I rather have the more experienced guy? Of course I would.

So where's the problem????

What I am arguing against is that the low time guys are unsafe. Clearly, they are not. That's WEAK! Show me the evidence that I'm wrong!!!"

CapnJim, Sorry that's not the way the scientific world works. Right or wrong, that's the way it is. Whether it is a new drug or a new scientific theory, the burden of proof is on the one going against popular convention. We don't just take them at their word and start popping pills and re-writing history books. Your side of this equation is against the status quo of 100 years of conventional aviation wisdom. Before any senior guys welcome low timers with open arms, your side of this equation is going to have to come up with a better response than "we haven't killed anyone yet."




Here's another, like it any better?
AVIATION SAFETY REPORTING SYSTEM
#618373
Part 121 Air Carrier, Night VMC
I FEEL INTIMIDATED WHEN FLYING IN NY AIRSPACE, I AM A RELATIVELY LOW TIME JET CAPT WITH LIMITED EXPERIENCE, I DO NOT ROUTINELY FLY IN AND OUT OF THIS AIRSPACE, AND I BECAME OVERWHELMED VERY QUICKLY

[jtrain609]

Except for that gaggle of guys that United hired with just PPL's, right?*

*Another horrible thing about science, and proofs is that it only takes one example to shoot it down. Don't go for the silver bullet, it never works.

[CapnJim]

So now you're misquoting me? And you're trying to tell me that 'conventional wisdom' trumps statistical fact? Are you kidding?

And no, the scientific world absolutely does not hold popular convention higher than statistical evidence. Only the scientists with a career, reputation, or pride to worry about stick thier head in the sand when all the evidence is against them. Sound familiar?
Popping pills? Re-writing history books? Your syllogistic reasoning has taken a sharp downward turn. If you want to convince me or anyone else, you're going to have to come up with some facts and avoid mangling any members quotes to your own argument.

[propilot3574]

Originally Posted by B767Driver

Very diplomatic response, Jim. I'm sure you could have easily come unglued with my response.

Where do the jobs come from? Well, first off...this will never happen unless the FAA revises the minimum qualifications for Part 121. But if it did happen...I think there would be plenty of pilots who'd meet the mins. But then, the charter/part 135 industry would begin to suffer experience problems...and that segment of the industry could suffer significant safety lapses. On the other hand...this segment would prove a mighty training camp for a young pilot. A charter outfit would need to hire, and compensate well, an experienced captain. A young guy would co-pilot and build experience in a lower paced, less sophisticated operation. The young guy would then cycle thru to the airline after 2 to 4 years of building quality multi engine/ifr experience. The charter co-pilot job would be a rotating door...and probably very low paid.

This is where a 500 hour pilot should be entering the workforce...not in a Part 121 RJ.

This permits the RJ copilot to come to the airline with experience and confidence and also with the ability to earn a higher wage...given his depth of experience over a person not yet qualified to fly for the airline.

Right now...the regional f/o is filling a job that I think should be going to a KingAir/Citation copilot.

But that's just me...and I don't think to many people in the government are going to adopt my recommendations.

I run an FBO and I see these Charter operations in and out all the time. I would love to sit right seat and get experience from the captains but there is no way because that seat is also taken by an over sixty ex-airline captain. Better yet tell the charter op you want fly with them for pennys let alone for free and they will probably give you something like "You are not qualified to sit in a position as an FO. Our insurance won't allow it." I agree there needs to be a level of maturity but theoptions of a charter op are far and few between.

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by propilot3574

I run an FBO and I see these Charter operations in and out all the time. I would love to sit right seat and get experience from the captains but there is no way because that seat is also taken by an over sixty ex-airline captain. Better yet tell the charter op you want fly with them for pennys let alone for free and they will probably give you something like "You are not qualified to sit in a position as an FO. Our insurance won't allow it." I agree there needs to be a level of maturity but theoptions of a charter op are far and few between.

Well this should tell us something right here. The insurance companies won't let a low time guy sit in the right seat of a corporate charter airplane. I'm sure the actuaries have all the numbers you'd need for this discussion.

A pilot can't sit in the right seat of a KingAir....but he can fly the paying public at a Part 121 airline?

[NJA_Capt]

Originally Posted by CapnJim

...you're trying to tell me that 'conventional wisdom' trumps statistical fact?

No, I am asking Y-O-U to present the "statistical facts" that you are right.

The scientific world absolutely does not hold popular convention higher than statistical evidence.

Really???? So if I decided to state that the dinosaurs evolved from duck snot, paleontologists would just take my word for it and change their "conventional" wisdom? Yea.....good luck with that.

You actually are misquoting me. I never said that conventional wisdom trumped statistical evidence. My point was that you must present that evidence before our conventional wisdom is modified. Conventional wisdom rules until evidence is presented to the contrary. Other than bickering, no evidence has been presented to prove your point.

Just a few post ago, you yourself followed conventional wisdom when you stated: Yes, of course a 1500/500 pilot is going to be better, safer, and more capable in emergency.

[propilot3574]

Originally Posted by B767Driver

Well this should tell us something right here. The insurance companies won't let a low time guy sit in the right seat of a corporate charter airplane. I'm sure the actuaries have all the numbers you'd need for this discussion.

A pilot can't sit in the right seat of a KingAir....but he can fly the paying public at a Part 121 airline?

However most of the time they say this, it is an easy copout for: We don't want to pay you or have a none needed person up front. Since the charter theory is out what next. I relize there still is instructing but 2500TT with 2000 dual instruction given? Are you qualified in your mind then?

[tonyw]

Originally Posted by NJA_Capt

No, I am asking Y-O-U to present the "statistical facts" that you are right.

The problem is, you cannot do this on a statistically significant level. Even with hundreds of reported incidents, given the number of operations we have every single day, much less year, those numbers are insignificant.

You can have hundreds of reports, but if you've got tens of millions of operations....

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by propilot3574

However most of the time they say this, it is an easy copout for: We don't want to pay you or have a none needed person up front. Since the charter theory is out what next. I relize there still is instructing but 2500TT with 2000 dual instruction given? Are you qualified in your mind then?

Well...that is a lot of instruction. I would think that there are charter opportunities out there...may have to look hard and move to find them. However...well over 50% of the guys I learned to fly with never could find a job...instructing or otherwise and all are out of aviation.

[amd87]

Originally Posted by Chris_Ford

$19/hr isn't bad though, if you're coming from a school where instructors are paid $7/hr

That's a damn shame. The instruction I received here last semester was much more thorough compared to what I got back home at my FBO. My instructor there was probably making around $20/hr...I thought he was underpaid.

If you have a chance, find a Purdue salary guide somewhere. Just flipping through, the pay for the lowest hourly employee is around $8/hr. I doubt the people raking leaves have the qualifications of a CFI.

Sucks to think I'm going to take a pay cut from the mindless job I have back home (pushing carts/cashier @ $8.25/hr.) to TEACH PEOPLE HOW TO FLY AN AIRPLANE at a respected university. Oh well, maybe LafAv hires Purdue kids?

[Chris_Ford]

Originally Posted by amd87

Oh well, maybe LafAv hires Purdue kids?

Hahahaha don't work at LafAv, go work at another FBO. LafAv is a joke ever since BJ took over. There are lots of places around that hire and pay more than LafAv, if you're willing to drive down to Indy for work (it's well worth it)

[JEP]

Originally Posted by txpilot

Will do. Surprisingly, I haven't been sent up there in quite a while. Been in MEM the past week, going to BHM this next week for a couple days, and LCK after that, and going to St Paul the following week. I'm gonna freeze my A$$ off.

Come On TX. It's been in the upper 30's all week. It is welll above normal and you can walk around with your jacket undone. It is actually quite nice now.

[JEP]

In case others didn't scroll back, here he a study I came across on AOPA. I believe it may be GA slanted, but it does speak to experience levels:


http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/03nall.pdf

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by JEP

In case others didn't scroll back, here he a study I came across on AOPA. I believe it may be GA slanted, but it does speak to experience levels:


http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/03nall.pdf

Interesting numbers. Highest percentages by far are those under 2000 to 2500 hours. Creeps up some over 10k...but that will be due to the length of exposure to flying. You only spend a short while under 2500 hours...yet accident rates spike high....you could spend 20 years over 10,000 hours. So the rate percentages even in this data are somewhat misleading.

Definitely, though, under 1000 hours is a critical time in the maturation of pilot skills.

[BoilerPilot2007]

Since Chris actually started this thread (I warned him not to), I feel that I should respond as diplomatically as possible.

I'm going to express my view, and logic through this mess. Now:

Experience matters. No one can argue with that. I will have 600TT and about 30 multi when I graduate. I may very well take a job at a regional when I graduate. My "experience" will include 10-15 hours in a King Air 200 (right seat), 50 hours in a B727 sim, and several hundred hours of dual given. Along with my degree (as useless as it may seem to many), I feel as though I would be capable to fly in the right seat of a regional. Obviously, some regional airlines do too, or they would not be hiring Purdue grads.

Does flying in the right seat for 1000 hours constitute experience? Some... maybe. There are things you learn, but how applicable is it to Part 121 flying? Now, I've never experienced an engine failure, total electric failure, or landing gear failure in my entire flying "career." We do these things in a crew environment in the 727 sim, however.

So, being a CFI for an additional 1000 hours is "paying my dues." 50 years ago, pilots were being hired by airlines with very low time and private pilots licenses. Did they pay their dues? Perhaps. Not as much as 2000 hour CFIs, maybe. Not everyone has to pay their dues. It's a cutthroat industry, where networking is everything.

You can ONLY gain experience flying an RJ, in an RJ. I find it hard to believe that sitting in the right seat of a 172 for 1000 hours will make someone more prepared than me. I believe that the training we get here at Purdue more than makes up for the difference.

So Chris, I am officially ####### myself out...

[Chris_Ford]

Nice thought out response, Evan, but you wouldn't be ####### yourself out as much as those with the Purdue minimums.

Also, I'd have to say that it's not really ####### yourself out if you're taking the obvious choice. Regional or CFI for 2 more years before going to another regional? I'll take Door #1 please.