Pilot Shortage / Minimums /disconnect

[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.

[goingnowherefast]

Often I wonder what would happen if the captain were to become incapacitated.

[C-GGGQ]

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.

I think where we disagree is the length that training process takes. I think what digits and I are saying is that it's perfectly acceptable for a new FO to take a month or two, somewhere in the 50-100 hr range to get into the groove. Now if you're saying these guys are useless still 4-8 months down the line then I posit it's not the <500hr FO's that's the problem it's training.

[shimmydampner]

Well then we'll have to agree to disagree. Like I said, I don't think even 2 months of incompetence is ok.

[a313]

...

[digits_]

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.

Not at all. It's probably a more philosophical discussion as to how well an FO should perform. But it is irrelevant for the point I'm trying to make, because I am comparing the current scenario vs my proposed scenario. I'm not comparing anything to the "ideal" scenario.

I'll repeat and rephrase: If you take the average performance level of a 1500 hour pilot accepting a 1900 FO position, then the top XX of the group of 200 hour pilots applying for your job will achieve the same or better performance with less than double the training, and they will stick around longer, recuperating the training costs.

[goingnowherefast]

What's missing from this discussion is the attitude of the various scenarios.

I've flown with a 2000hr FO with a "I'm good enough" attitude. Was a shame, cause he was horrible.

I've flown with a 300hr FO who had less than 50 hours on type with a great eagerness to learn and was miles ahead of the previously mentioned pilot.

It's the eager attitude and willingness to learn that begins when the candidate is hired, through company indoc, groundschool, sim, line indoc and routine line flying. Most super low time pilots know they're at an experience disadvantage, so are generally super eager.

The 1000-2000 hr FO, what's their background, their attitude, humility, etc.? 2000hrs of complacently is different than a PC12 FO needing the multi ride for their ATPL, so finds a 1900 FO spot with the intent to go captain soon. Meaning very eager with ambitious career goals. Chances are the sim and PPC ride went much better, line indoc goes smoother, offers actual feedback and useful opinions and support to the captain.

I'll take a 500hr eager competent FO over the 2000hr complacent FO any day.

[Moosemeat]

I’m flying 703 at a base that also has 704. Several cojos have moved on to the green pastures that all are looking for with 900-1200 hours. Mind you their experience in my opinion is top of the line with turbine and no auto pilot.

[shimmydampner]

I'll repeat and rephrase: If you take the average performance level of a 1500 hour pilot accepting a 1900 FO position, then the top XX of the group of 200 hour pilots applying for your job will achieve the same or better performance with less than double the training, and they will stick around longer, recuperating the training costs.

Forgive me but I'm trying to understand your position. Are you suggesting that anyone with 1500 hours who would apply for a 1900 FO position must be a sub par pilot? If so, why?

[C-GGGQ]

Yes that's exactly what he's said multiple times. He believes in this market where 800 hrs can get you into the regionals that the 1500 hr guy who goes to the 1900 probably has been PFO'd from the better options. Where as you could screen for the cream of the crop of the 200-500 hr guys applying and get a much better pilot.

[digits_]

Yes that's exactly what he's said multiple times. He believes in this market where 800 hrs can get you into the regionals that the 1500 hr guy who goes to the 1900 probably has been PFO'd from the better options. Where as you could screen for the cream of the crop of the 200-500 hr guys applying and get a much better pilot.

Yes, thank you for the summary!

With the little addition that some 1500 hr pilots might accept the 1900 FO job by choice for other reasons (base close to home, no desire to go to airlines, ...) in which case my theory doesn't apply, but from what I've seen, I estimate that to be a tiny minority and there are definitely not enough of those people out there to crew the 1900 FO jobs.

[shimmydampner]

I will certainly admit that it seems doubtful that ANYONE good or bad with 1500 hours would apply for such a position, but I think that's quite a leap to make to assume that if they did, they suck. It's no different than thinking that a 250 hour applicant would suck.

[shimmydampner]

the 1500 hr guy who goes to the 1900 probably has been PFO'd from the better options. Where as you could screen for the cream of the crop of the 200-500 hr guys applying and get a much better pilot.

Would you throw the 1500 hour guy's resume out under the assumption that he was no good, or would you screen him as you would a 250 hour guy?

[C-GGGQ]

Screen him, but the point stands the pool of "1500 hr guys looking for 1900 FO positions" is limited, where as the pool of "250-500 looking for anything" is much larger with therefore a higher likelyhood of finding that exceptional beginner.

[digits_]

the 1500 hr guy who goes to the 1900 probably has been PFO'd from the better options. Where as you could screen for the cream of the crop of the 200-500 hr guys applying and get a much better pilot.

Would you throw the 1500 hour guy's resume out under the assumption that he was no good, or would you screen him as you would a 250 hour guy?

Another part of what I'm trying to say is that, due to advertising required minimum hours of 600/1000/+, the 704 operator will never see the full size of the 200 hour pool, because a significant part of 200h pilots will not apply of the minimum required hours is >1000.

And finally, even the good 1500 hour pilots that apply, will most likely be advertising at the regional/mainline level as well. So even if they are great, you'll lose them pretty quickly, which strains the training department and line indoc guys more than it should.

[digits_]

I will certainly admit that it seems doubtful that ANYONE good or bad with 1500 hours would apply for such a position, but I think that's quite a leap to make to assume that if they did, they suck. It's no different than thinking that a 250 hour applicant would suck.

Of course it is different. You don't have any -or very limited- information regarding a 250 hour applicant. So it could go both ways.
With the 1500 hour pilot, you have more information (previous employer, career soo far, ...). Unless he has a good reason why he wants to work at your 704 operation as an FO, I would treat that as a red flag.