Pilot Shortage / Minimums /disconnect

[digits_]

I see what you're getting at, that someone with 200 hours and just out of flight school is going to probably be more up-to-date on the rules and regs and more keen to learn than someone with 1500 hours of bush flying.

In some ways you're right but think back to what you were like at 200 hours, now think about what you were like at 1500 hours, I'm sure you'll agree that you were a better overall Pilot at 1500 hours than 200 hours.

Absolutely. But we're not comparing 1 pilot at 2 points of time in his career, we are comparing 2 different pilots. I don't think the 1500 hour pilot in my example would be super great at 200 hours either.

So we are comparing a well tested/interviewed/vetted 200 hour pilot selected out of a pool of, let's say 100 applicants versus a 1500 hour pilot out of a pool of 2? 5? applicants.

You also can't make sweeping statements about, someone with 1500 hours who would take a 1900 fo position in this economy, as though this makes that person a moron who's unfit to fly. People make decisions based on things like location, close to family etc not just on size of an aircraft.

Absolutely, but still, ... what location only has a 1900 FO spot for a 1500 hour pilot nowadays?

I brought up the argument of the 200 hour pilot as a reply towards a post complaining about the skills of a 1500 hour FO. The 1500 hour mark was considered a good play of the company to get good and safe pilots because they have experience. Yet the poster was unhappy about the skills of the 1500 hour FO. Increasing the hour requirements would -in my opinion- only make matters worse. Lowering the experience requirements so you can select out of a bigger pool of candidates would be more beneficial, unless of course the salary goes up with the requested experience, but I don't believe that to be the case in these discussions.

[mixturerich]

Say what you will about the low level of experience at the airlines now, but they have highly qualified experts, lawyers, and analysts saying it’s perfectly fine and the risks are worth the revenue. Maybe they’re right? What do we know

[goingnowherefast]

Say what you will about the low level of experience at the airlines now, but they have highly qualified experts, lawyers, and analysts saying it’s perfectly fine and the risks are worth the revenue. Maybe they’re right? What do we know

I bet the experts are nervous as hell (meaning flight ops management). It's the lawyers, accountants executives and other analysts who are happy.


On another note, some companies have already gone under because they can't find or afford pilots

[shimmydampner]

I brought up the argument of the 200 hour pilot as a reply towards a post complaining about the skills of a 1500 hour FO.

I reviewed this whole thread, and nowhere did I find any comments complaining about the skills of 1500 hour FOs. You've been tilting at windmills this whole time.

[digits_]

I brought up the argument of the 200 hour pilot as a reply towards a post complaining about the skills of a 1500 hour FO.

I reviewed this whole thread, and nowhere did I find any comments complaining about the skills of 1500 hour FOs. You've been tilting at windmills this whole time.

No point in joining this discussion if you can't read. Nothing I can do to help you there.

I have a similar experience as FOD vacuum. I work for a company that prefers to hire 1500 hourish pilots for a 1900 FO position. And let me tell you, some of these FOs that have this amount of time (usually all instructing) STILL need to be babied with every aspect of their flying. I swear sometimes it feels like I’m flying single pilot because I’m having to coach the guy beside me how to work with CRFI numbers, how to calculate IFR alternate requirements, how to use performance charts, etc. It makes some captains grow grey hair very quickly, so you can imagine the babysitting required when putting a 500 hour guy in a high performance, pressurized airplane.

Not sure if it’s proven or not, but I’m almost certain that it’s cheaper for companies to put up with a shortage of pilots while waiting for the right experience to come along than to spend thousands and thousands of dollars teaching a 250 hour pilot how to fly an ILS approach. I’ve heard stories of companies hiring 1000 hour pilots who have just finished their IFR rating, and have never actually flown into a single cloud in their life. Then the training that’s supposed to be aircraft specific and company specific, turns into “how to fly in IMC without becoming disoriented.” Because let’s face it, flying around with some cheap goggles on to simulate IFR is NOWHERE CLOSE to what it actually feels like to fly an ILS approach down to minimums in actual IMC... at night... with a crosswind... in a snow storm...

[Blackdog0301]

For the record, I was referencing SOME 1500 hour pilots, not all. Pilots with this amount of time should be able to slide in seamlessly into pretty much any flying role with the right training. But from what I’ve seen, I still see some guys with this amount of time flying like they are sub-500 hour pilots. But in the end, I’d still rather have these guys next to me over 250 hour guys... why? Experience. I couldn’t give a crap about the low time guys being “fresher.” Knowing something is one thing...applying it is quite another.

[shimmydampner]

...

[C-GGGQ]

For the record, I was referencing SOME 1500 hour pilots, not all. Pilots with this amount of time should be able to slide in seamlessly into pretty much any flying role with the right training. But from what I’ve seen, I still see some guys with this amount of time flying like they are sub-500 hour pilots. But in the end, I’d still rather have these guys next to me over 250 hour guys... why? Experience. I couldn’t give a crap about the low time guys being “fresher.” Knowing something is one thing...applying it is quite another.

Except that makes no sense. If these 1500 hour guys are "just as bad" as the 200 they've proven they have no capacity to learn where as the 200 is just new. If as digits suggests you screen for the best 200 hr guys vs the leftover 1500 hour guy the 200 hour guy will be proficient faster.

[ehv8oar]

This is the problem with just using amount of flight time instead of type of flight time as the criteria.

Someone who's got 1500 hours flying around in their own floatplane is not gonna be as quick at picking things up in an IFR environment as someone who's got 800 hours, 600 of which have been spent right seat in an ifr pc12 or something of the type.

It doesn't mean they're stupid just that they dont have relevant experience.

[Blackdog0301]

For the record, I was referencing SOME 1500 hour pilots, not all. Pilots with this amount of time should be able to slide in seamlessly into pretty much any flying role with the right training. But from what I’ve seen, I still see some guys with this amount of time flying like they are sub-500 hour pilots. But in the end, I’d still rather have these guys next to me over 250 hour guys... why? Experience. I couldn’t give a crap about the low time guys being “fresher.” Knowing something is one thing...applying it is quite another.

Except that makes no sense. If these 1500 hour guys are "just as bad" as the 200 they've proven they have no capacity to learn where as the 200 is just new. If as digits suggests you screen for the best 200 hr guys vs the leftover 1500 hour guy the 200 hour guy will be proficient faster.

First, I compared these guys to sub-500 hour pilots... Which is Still miles ahead of new CPL IFR pilots. No matter how bad a 1500 hour pilot is, they are ALWAYS going to have more experience than a 250 hour pilot. If we have an engine fire after takeoff, who's going to have the cooler head? The guy who's been flying planes longer. That's a no brainer. A 250 hour pilot is going to freeze every time, leaving me to do everything myself. Low time pilots haven't seen ANYTHING yet. You tell me who you'd rather have next do you during an emergency? Some new hire who's been flying for less than 2 years? Or a guy who's been flying for 5 or 6?Go fly pipeline, instruct, tow gliders. Not for the sake of gaining hours, but gaining Experience.

[maxflight636]

I think both sides are kind of right actually....

The major issue here is attitude and other qualifications. I have a cousin with 650 who has been in serious chats with a regional carrier (with serious career progression opportunities). If you're willing to put in the work and acknowledge there's still room to grow, a lot of folks would look at how they can (safely) get you into the seat. I can't say how soon (or if) my cousin will get onto a schedule, but he's definitely getting some attention (and they have his phone number close by).


A shortage isn't an excuse to take risks though. If (as an operator or passenger) I knew my FO had 650tt, I might be biting my nails a bit. However, if you carry yourself with confidence and respect the process though, then you might find someone willing to pair you with a strong Captain and get you well on your way.

There are options. Just keep in mind that even the "most desperate" aren't going to be reckless (it's not a disconnect).
If you have low hours, just make sure you make a case for yourself (and keep working whenever you can, to pack in more hours).

[digits_]

No matter how bad a 1500 hour pilot is, they are ALWAYS going to have more experience than a 250 hour pilot. If we have an engine fire after takeoff, who's going to have the cooler head? The guy who's been flying planes longer. That's a no brainer.

I disagree. It's not that obvious. Plenty of experieced crew mishandle emergencies like that. Occasionally you see a news story with a new 200 hour pilot having emergencies and handling it properly.

A 250 hour pilot is going to freeze every time,

Why do you think that? These people have been trained and passed their check rides, PPC and line indoc. Why would they freeze? I don't think there is any data to support or disprove that.

Low time pilots haven't seen ANYTHING yet. You tell me who you'd rather have next do you during an emergency? Some new hire who's been flying for less than 2 years? Or a guy who's been flying for 5 or 6?

At my last job, I would have picked the eager 250 hour pilot thatk new the flight manual and all checklists by hard and actually knew what he was doing over the 1300 hour guy that was counting down the hours and days to go to jazz and didn't even know what an ADF was, let alone tune in a frequency to fly directly to the beacon. If you train pilots with the right attitude properly, you can be really amazed by what they can do.


Here is an other question: wy are you ok with putting a 200 hour pilot in a shitty 206 to go scudrunning at 300 ft with 5 paying pax, but not with putting that same pilot in a well controlled 704 environment with an experienced captain?

I'd argue the second option is the safer one.

[C-GGGQ]

No matter how bad a 1500 hour pilot is, they are ALWAYS going to have more experience than a 250 hour pilot. If we have an engine fire after takeoff, who's going to have the cooler head? The guy who's been flying planes longer. That's a no brainer.

I disagree. It's not that obvious. Plenty of experieced crew mishandle emergencies like that. Occasionally you see a news story with a new 200 hour pilot having emergencies and handling it properly.

A 250 hour pilot is going to freeze every time,

Why do you think that? These people have been trained and passed their check rides, PPC and line indoc. Why would they freeze? I don't think there is any data to support or disprove that.

Low time pilots haven't seen ANYTHING yet. You tell me who you'd rather have next do you during an emergency? Some new hire who's been flying for less than 2 years? Or a guy who's been flying for 5 or 6?

At my last job, I would have picked the eager 250 hour pilot thatk new the flight manual and all checklists by hard and actually knew what he was doing over the 1300 hour guy that was counting down the hours and days to go to jazz and didn't even know what an ADF was, let alone tune in a frequency to fly directly to the beacon. If you train pilots with the right attitude properly, you can be really amazed by what they can do.


Here is an other question: wy are you ok with putting a 200 hour pilot in a shitty 206 to go scudrunning at 300 ft with 5 paying pax, but not with putting that same pilot in a well controlled 704 environment with an experienced captain?

I'd argue the second option is the safer one.

Exactly this. Pipeline/ instructing (where we hear all the time "don't instruct just to build hours") towing gliders. Forget the fact that they are jobs few and far between (other than instructing) how is it safer to have to 200 hr guy "who has seen nothing" by himself the first time he sees all these things?! Those should be maybe a first Pic Gig but then that would mean going to a reputable airline with a good training program to learn for 2000 hrs then going to the bush to fly pic then back.

[mixturerich]

This experience topic has sure been beaten to death. None of our opinions matter though. The airlines will weigh risk vs cost and make their own decisions.

[skybluetrek]

Airline management could also say "hey we found the solution to the problem, it's been on Wikipedia all this time!!!" : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_to_fly

[Blackdog0301]

We can agree to disagree. But I think the fact that operators haven’t lowered their minimums more than they already have tells the story.

[digits_]

Airline management could also say "hey we found the solution to the problem, it's been on Wikipedia all this time!!!" : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_to_fly

How would that help if they can't even find 704 FOs with enough time?

This whole topic has been about the disconnect at the 703/704 level. There is no shortage at the 705 level (yet).

[mixturerich]

There is no shortage at the 705 level (yet).

Yes there is, do you know how many flights were cancelled last months from lack of crews? A lot. It’s just the beginning but it’s definitely starting to be very evident.

[JohnnyHotRocks]

There is no shortage at the 705 level (yet).

Yes there is, do you know how many flights were cancelled last months from lack of crews? A lot. It’s just the beginning but it’s definitely starting to be very evident.

I find that hard to believe

[shimmydampner]

It has suddenly dawned on me what the disconnect is. There is a fundamental difference between how guys like GGGQ and digits view the role and responsibility of an FO, and how I do. One side seems to think that the position is one where it is acceptable for inexperienced pilots to undergo a sort of lengthy on the job training process, wherein they likely are not truly competent at the start, but hopefully get there over time without anything too bad happening because they are under the watchful eye of a (hopefully) experienced captain. I fundamentally disagree with this. It is a professional endeavor, not training environment. You need to have your act fully together before you ever get there. I believe it is the responsibility of the FO to assist the captain and be fully competent and capable of handling the aircraft on their own, while learning the finer points of the aircraft and operation and polishing their existing skills with help from the more experienced captain. I believe the latter is what both the guy in the left seat, and the passengers in the back are ethically entitled to.