Safety and Flight Hours/Experience

[Guest mr_gordon777]

I lieu of the Comair crash in Kentucky, it got me thinking about the experience level of the pilots who fly for regional airlines. I am not commenting on the crew of this tragedy, since I don't know what their experience level was...but rather the requirements of the regional airlines and the lax interview requirements they grant to some of the Part 141 schools out there. Several of these Part 141 school grads get promised interviews at some regionals with significantly lower flight hours (~750 hrs TT) than a person who takes the traditional Part 61-to-CFI/II route.

Not to knock the Part 141 fast-track civilian training route, but has/could this lower level of experience lend itself to serious lapses in safety that a pilot with 1500+ TT pilot would be less likely to make?

[ 30. August 2006, 16:54: Message edited by: robot_chicken ]

[Guest thefranchise]

if you are talking about unsafe habits and lax attitude to regs and rules then a bad pilot with 500hrs and a bad pilot with 1500hrs are both bad pilots.

time in airframe is a different thing since that could factor how one deals with mechanical issues that could compound

[Murph]

Originally posted by robot_chicken:

Not to knock the Part 141 fast-track civilian training route, but has/could this lower level of experience lend itself to serious lapses in safety that a pilot with 1500+ TT pilot would be less likely to make?

Maybe. I enjoyed instructing PT61 guys since it afforded me some extra flexibility. I could sit and bs with them about recent incidents/accidents and I wasn't constricted by a Part 141 syllabus. I liked to ask them what they'd do in a situation (without them knowing what accident I was talking about). It seemed to drive home the point about decision making in the airplane--something I think a typical Pt141 program glosses over.

[Clayton Bigsby]

Everybody's got to get their start somewhere, flight-hours wise.

[Bergman]

Originally posted by robot_chicken:

I lieu of the Comair crash in Kentucky, it got me thinking about the experience level of the pilots who fly for regional airlines. I am not commenting on the crew of this tragedy, since I don't know what their experience level was...but rather the requirements of the regional airlines and the lax interview requirements they grant to some of the Part 141 schools out there. Several of these Part 141 school grads get promised interviews at some regionals with significantly lower flight hours (~750 hrs TT) than a person who takes the traditional Part 61-to-CFI/II route.

Not to knock the Part 141 fast-track civilian training route, but has/could this lower level of experience lend itself to serious lapses in safety that a pilot with 1500+ TT pilot would be less likely to make?

I don't know what your experience with regionals has been, but in my experience the interview process was brutal. The first step was a 30 minute CRJ-200 sim with 4 Captains in the sim (one in the left seat, one running the sim, and 2 others to evaluate) - all with no prep time or prior knowledge, then an ATP-based written exam, then finally the HR interview with HR weenie and chief pilot. Even with all the gouge out on the internet, it was not easy. They ended up offering the job to 4 out of 12 applicants (I got an offer, before anyone makes a comment). The next pool had 3 offers from 11 applicants. Those aren't great odds.

Having said that...the reason they've made their interview process more difficult is that they hired a bunch of bad pilots in previous years. Many other airlines are worse, to be sure. And with the "airline academies" the hiring mins could be as low as 250TT/100ME, none of which has to be in a turbine/swept wing aircraft. FWIW this was PSA Airlines (US Air Express)

Also, many of the regionals are now flying 70-90 seat equipment. IIRC, most DC-9s and early 737s were in the 90 seat range. So, in the good old days, you had a 2000+ hour pilot in the right seat flying 90 pax. Now you've got a 250 hour pilot flying 90 passenges (for 1/3 the money, I might add). I'm not saying experience was the cause of this accident, as both of these guys had been flying the CRJ for several years, but sooner or later the airlines are going to have to answer for their hiring practices (i.e. IMHO you will start seeing more pilot-error related crashes due to much lower experience).

[Guest rotorhead]

It's not the hours put into flying, it's the flying put into the hours.

I knew C-5 "IPs" that bragged of all their instructor experience. Then I found out that they were logging IP time sleeping in the bunk during pond crossings. All respect lost.

[Guest mr_gordon777]

Bergman,

Thanks for the insight...I have no regional experience whatsoever...just a 160 hr guy with a PPL looking in from the outside and wondering how regional guys with 4x the time I've got are flying 90+ pax jets. That being said, I know the military's training is rigorous enough to put a low-timer in a multi-million dollar jet, but wasn't sure if the regionals had bridge program for that same purpose.

[Guest SUMA]

I have Part 61 (PPL), Part 141 (Commercial, Multi, Instrument) and military training experience. The more regimented the training...the better. If you need the flexibility to get your flight training then Part 61 is ok, but if you're not flying more than twice a week you're pissing away money relearning what you forgot from the previous flight. Part 141 pilots don't get that much of a break in hours (35 hours instead of 40 for the PPL, I think it's 100 hour difference for the commercial). Also, Part 141 requires a minimum number of hours in ground training be logged as well. This doesn't exist for Part 61. Part 141 is definitely the better training program.

[ 30. August 2006, 19:41: Message edited by: Wink ]

[Guest PilotKD]

These guys weren't low time pilots. The captain had been there for 7 years and the first officer had been there for 4. I bet the CA had at least 5,000 hours and the FO at least 3,000. Regional pilots can fly 750+ hours a year. I don't think this accident was because there was a lack of experience in the jet.

As said before, airlines do have a rigorous training program. Many of them don't even consider you an employee until you pass your sim check. If you fail training, guess what. You're fired. Guess what that does to your career. The airline business has no mercy on people who can't get past training. Much like UPT, training is fast paced. I'm sure a few slower individuals get slip through the cracks, but, on the contrary, there are plenty of the same type who get through UPT by the skin of their teeth and are off flying in our system somewhere also. Look at our training. We come out of UPT with 200-220 hours or so in actual aircraft and we're flying anything from a 35,000lb F-16 to a 800,000lb C-5. Granted, in crew aircraft, we start as copilots, but I know AC's who were upgraded with 800-1,000 hours TOTAL time (primary, secondard, other and sim time). I don't care how much better you think UPT is than your typical civilian training. Going to the left seat of a 4-engine "heavy" responsible for "global mobility" is pretty darn scary.

Airline pilots typically have much more time in type before they go to the left seat than we do and their daily lives are not filled with extraordinary bull$hit that doesn't leave much time to think about that other part of our job, ie: flying. I know guys who only get out of the office once a month to stay current. Brand new IP's, who've flown 5-10 hours in the last two months who go off to fly a sortie with a new copilot. I sometimes think we're setting ourselves up for something tragic too.

But, again, this was not caused by a lack of experience. This was loss of SA, maybe a little complacency, and a major fvck up in airmanship caused by the first two, which can happen to ANYONE.

[JVBFLY]

DITTO KD!

Come on guys...flight hours and experience being related to safety? Refer to our recent C-5 accident as a perfect example. It is not the experience, or lack of experience that kills, it is COMPLACENCY! Experience is vital when dealing with mechanical/aircraft issues, but experience doesn't mean shit if you aren't paying attention!

[LJDRVR]

Murphy is patient and waiting. He doesn't care whether you went to UPT or not, whether or not you're a patch wearer, type-rated, new to the jet or an old head. Your discipline, attitude and airmanship determine your level of safety.

The regionals don't tend to hire too many duds. Those that we miss either get caught in the schoolhouse, or never make it past the check airman when it comes time for IOE. (Initial Operating Experience)

I've flown with many lower experience First Officers. Their experience level shows, and of course some are more talented than others*, but on the whole they are competent drivers and I enjoy working with them. The human stops are in place during landing, and I watch them very carefully.

Airlines also have rules and procedures to prevent green on green pairings. (In other words, at least one of us has a fair amount of time in the jet.)

*Like the A-10 guy I flew two PIT turns with earlier this month. Sharp.

[Guest Rainman A-10]

Originally posted by LJDRVR:

Murphy is patient and waiting. He doesn't care whether...or not you're a patch wearer

In fact, the number of class A mishaps and combat losses involving patch wearers is wildly out of proportion with the percentage of patch wearers in the general pilot population.

Patch wearers seem to crash a lot more for some reason...

[JVBFLY]

Are they actually wearing their "PATCH" at the time of the accident? Sorry...couldn't pass that opportunity...guess you were right Rainman, the piece of cloth does nothing. Except maybe, as you stated, give them a greater chance of an accident. :D

[B-O-double-Z]

Look at it this way...

Different skill sets are required to be good at different types of flying. A good fighter pilot, does not (necessarily) a good commuter pilot make. Nor does a good 747 pilot neccessarily make a good crop-duster. Different types of flying can be as unrelated as driving an Indy Car and an 18-wheeler.

Let's say you were the best at each of these types of flying...

Crop Duster Pilot

Fighter Pilot

Cargo Pilot

Bush Pilot

Attack Pilot

Rescue Pilot

Gunship Pilot

Commuter Pilot

Major Airline Pilot

Off-shore helo pilot

C-150 CFI Pilot

T-37 IP Pilot

Bizjet Pilot

Medical evac Pilot

Which one is the best pilot overall? Who knows...

The skills which make you good and/or safe at one kind of flying may have nothing to do with the skills which are espoused in another.

Safety is pretty much the crux of the mission in the commercial civilian world. You don't color outside the lines. Airlines have proven constructs which make the operation as safe as possible for the common denominator--which is the worst pilot they employ.

In the AF, safety is a goal, but it does not define the mission. The best pilots I've ever seen, tend to be the guys who make the best decisions when things aren't going according to plan.

If you are going to survive a career as a crop-duster, you better have golden hands and good eyesight.

A career bush-pilot better know what his airplane if capable of, and be a helluva decision maker, 'cause there ain't no charts for him to look at for Take/Landing on a dirt strip in the mountains.

Back to the original question...how much does experience play in safety. The answer (the standard patch-wearer answer) is...it depends.

[Guest Rainman A-10]

Originally posted by JVBFLY:

Are they actually wearing their "PATCH" at the time of the accident?

...guess you were right Rainman, the piece of cloth does nothing. Except maybe, as you stated, give them a greater chance of an accident. :D

Good question.

Here comes another uninvited roof stomp ramble...

Some were wearing their patch at the time. Some were not.

Anyone know how many A-10s were shot down in Allied Force, Desert Storm or OIF? Anyone know how many took battle damage? Anyone know how many of those incidents involved a patch wearer? Did someone say almost all of them? I'm making no assumptions or broad generalizations about patch weareres here but you have to admit it is kind of odd.

That doesn't even take the peacetime mishaps into account. Lots of patchwearers involved there, too. A statistically unusual number.

The patch itself doesn't increase a person's odds of having an incident. It does, often increase their opportunity though because patch weareres are often given more difficult tasking and/or are often the first guys to ever do something that has not been tried before.

Being too aggressive kills. Fortunately, there are very few pilots who are too aggressive. Aggressiveness is rarely an issue, especially in peacetime.

Lack of skill can also kill. However, lack of skill is also very rarely the reason someone crashes an airplane.

Complacency is far and away the biggest killer. Nothing else even comes close. People get complacent, lose SA and then get into a situation they don't have the skills (like ability to defy the laws of physics) to get out of.

Most times I can look at a chain of events leading to a mishap in total disbelief that a fully qualified and capable pilot(s) made such an unbelievably string of stupid decisions. My first reaction is typically "Holy shit, what a dumbass!" That is because, technique only, I believe you are duty bound to do whatever it takes to maintain SA, including turning down "tasking" (of any sort) if it is beyond your capability at that very moment. Each pilot needs to know when to say "UNABLE" to himself and everyone else. They must have the stones to say it knowing they will likely take shit from the company or their squadron mates or their passengers.

Knowing your limits and staying within them is the foundation of all SA. You make good decisions if you do that and you make shitty decisions if you don't.

Individual "high SA" is relative. Your relative SA is based on your ablitiy to stay within your personal limits while you are in the jet.

Your potential total SA is limited by your ability and the work you have done before you need SA.

Building high total SA like Bozz talks about is dependant upon your willingness to admit to your weaknesses, honestly evaluate your mistakes, humilty to ask for help with things you don't know how to do and motivation to do whatever it takes to learn and get better. 99% of total potential SA building occurs at zero knots and 1 G.

What's the point?

Everyone is susceptible to complaceny. Complacency is not dependant upon your total potential SA. Complacency will kill you regardless of how much potential total SA you can have. I have some dead friends and many surviving friends, all of whom had extremely high potential total SA, who had class A mishaps because they were complacent which led to momentary lapses in SA from which there was no recovery.

Don't get complacent.

[Guest KoolKat]

Situational Awareness, Relative Situational Awareness, Total Situational Awareness, Potential Situation Awareness, Total Potential Situation Awareness, Situational Situational Awareness...

Sure is alot easier to say, It depends.

Better yet, sure would just be easier to think about those 6-8 attitudes, whatever they were again that have a negative impact on one of your 6 modes of SA.

I'd be surprised if someone hadn't written a paper on this shit before.

BENDY

[Guest ruckerstud]

I heard about a study the Brits did were they found out there are really three threat bands for accidents as it relates to flight hours. The first one was 450-500 hrs, the second at like 1500 hr and the last was at like 5000. So, I would say all things being equal i.e. dude is not a bad pilot to start with, hrs make you safer assuming you don't get to the point you think you have seen and done everything. That is when Murphy will step up and smack you.

[Guest SuperStallionIP]

Truly superior pilots use their superior judgement to stay out of situations where they have to use their superior skills. Ready room gouge.