Cycles VS Hours

[Cat Driver]

The use of logged hours for determining pilot skills is over rated and not a nearly as reliable as how many cycles and in what enviroment the pilot conducted said cycles.

For instance we can use two cases, first a pilot on long haul flights to the Orient will do one take off and landing in say fifteen hours of logged flight time and a water bombing crew flying a scooper can do over a hundred cycles ( landing and take off. ) in the same amount of flight time.

Another issue is where these cycles take place, for instance a pilot landing and taking off from unprepared surfaces such as eskers in the High Arctic becomes far more skilled in airplane handling than a pilot landing on a long paved runway after an ILS approach.

This worship of logged hours is one of the most overated things in aviation.

Not to mention a very poor benchmark of skill.

Cat

[AntiNakedMan]

In gliding, we use the argument of airtow pilots and winch pilots


a standard air tow flight is 17 min in the cadet program, wheras a winch flight is about 6 min.

fortunately our standards make allowances not only for time but for number of flights

for example, to be pax rated you have to have 10 hours AND so many flights. usually winch guys have far more flights when they reach the 10hr mark.

Anti

[2milefinal]

This worship of logged hours is one of the most overated things in aviation.

Not to mention a very poor benchmark of skill.

Cat

I have to agree. The problem also is the insurance company's cant seem to figure this out. They seem to think PIC and total time is all they have to worry about.

[trey kule]

The sense I get from the insurers is that there is such a variable in types of flying, as Cat mentioned, that they look for alot of hours under the assumption (correct or not), that when you have accumulated that many hours you have to have learned something by osmosis.

As to the PIC, it does give you experience in decision making skills that simply, in my opinion, can not be learned as as FO.

While I dont disagree with you Cat, how about suggesting an alternative method for trying to determine pilot competency?

[Cat Driver]

" While I dont disagree with you Cat, how about suggesting an alternative method for trying to determine pilot competency? "

As I believe I have already outlined competency can be better determined by examining the whole picture of a pilots background rather than just looking at total time logged.

If it is important to know a pilots general exposure to flying and their ability it really does not take very long to look deeper than just examinging her/his log book.

If it is important to get a feeling for a pilots probable skill and decision maing ability then I suggest looking beyond logged time.

The last thing I would look for is high marks on a TC written exam, in fact high marks could indicate a mental disorder.

Cat

[trey kule]

Cat.


I like the concept. Please explain in more detail the specifics of what one should look for, kind of a competency checklist to make it a little more objective than subjective.

[. ._]

I agree, Cat... unless I get hired to sleep in the right seat of a Cathay Pacific A340, then it's hours all the way!

-istp

[jetway]

competency can be better determined by examining the whole picture of a pilots background rather than just looking at total time logged.
If it is important to know a pilots general exposure to flying and their ability it really does not take very long to look deeper than just examinging her/his log book.

Cat

AMEN to that!!!

[jay-f]

For instance we can use two cases, first a pilot on long haul flights to the Orient will do one take off and landing in say fifteen hours of logged flight time and a water bombing crew flying a scooper can do over a hundred cycles ( landing and take off. ) in the same amount of flight time.

Another issue is where these cycles take place, for instance a pilot landing and taking off from unprepared surfaces such as eskers in the High Arctic becomes far more skilled in airplane handling than a pilot landing on a long paved runway after an ILS approach.

This worship of logged hours is one of the most overated things in aviation.

Not to mention a very poor benchmark of skill.

Cat

Your definition of a skilled pilot is really narrow. Theres a lot more to flying than just handling.

[Gr8Pilot]

I have come accross companies in certain parts of the world who actually do count take-offs and landings (cycles) as part of their assesment of a potential employee. Australian companies in the lower end of the GA spectrumtend to worry about cycles. The ones that I ran accross and talked to were Float Operators and they counted every cycle as 1 hour of flying. I used to fly in Fiji where we did 10-15 min legs and 15-20 trips a day!! If I went by the Australian Operator's standard and was legally allowed to log that cycle as an hour, I calculated to have an extra 1300 hours! Wouldn't that be nice.
I have also come accross companies in Europe where you need to "Factor" your hours by the type of flying that you have done. This is only for their hiring purposes of course, but as an example, if you did 1 hour of flying in a C206 Day VFR, it would only count for .1 of an hour when calculating your Total Hours. I didn't agree with this particular company's Factoring System because it really didn't take into account that VFR flying can be some of the most demanding flying to be done. While some IFR flying is so mindless that you wonder why you're sitting in the seat in the first place. Your 80 year old Granny could do it.

Having said all this, I am not sure if these companies are requested by insurance companies to do this type of hour calculations, or where it's just internal company policy. But I do tend to agree with you Cat Driver, flying is more than just hours.

[Cat Driver]

" Your definition of a skilled pilot is really narrow. Theres a lot more to flying than just handling. "

Yeh jay-f , I'm probably lacking in background to comment on this subject so maybe you could educate me about the real world of flying?

Cat

[snaproll20]

You are absolutely right, Cat, but I suppose the onus is on the operator to decided whether a potential employee has the experience required.
(Hmmmmm.....pulse, warm, upright....Wanna job dispatching or ramping for a few years until someone else quits?)

As far as a regulatory oversight of this....don't hold your breath.
Years ago TC tried to correlate a specific type of landing to experience, and....you already guessed it.......it was tied to "hours".

[water wings]

Your definition of a skilled pilot is really narrow. Theres a lot more to flying than just handling.

huh? if you are talking about paperwork, i'm gonna give you the beats... Flying an AC is all about handling (which will include systems)
CRM, airmanship are other things and makes you a better person and easier to be around while being a pilot, but flying is essentially, well, handling of the aircraft, IMHO.

I don't believe Cat is putting down the transatlantic IFR flying at all, just realises that it is different ( i guess he has some sort of "flying" experience...not really sure )

[West Coast Swell]

I had a ex-airline captain in the Goose with me yesterday he told me he logged 200 take-off and landings through-out his entire career. He couldn't believe what we were doing in the goose and where we were doing it. Over the past 6 years I have averaged 3000 take off and landings per year. Thats 18,000 ups and downs. Crazy! Does it make me a better pilot..... who knows but man have I been having fun!

[Spokes]

Well, I suppose job-resume wise this is why you put what type of flying you have done on your resume along with your total hours. For low time times like me hours does let a potential employer know how many seasons you have worked and gives a bit of a basline on your background.

I still agree however that the whole idea of hours being the only measure of experience sucks.

as for this:

As to the PIC, it does give you experience in decision making skills that simply, in my opinion, can not be learned as as FO.

I do not really agree. The First O does gain experience from every decision that a PIC makes. They see the situation, the PIC's decision and the results of every decision made by the PIC. This is the definition of experience. The PIC normally should already have more experience in order to make informed decisions, gets the pay do do so, and suffers the consequences of making the wrong decision. I would say that for a low time guy, being an FO (initially anyways) would provide an incredible wealth of experience to be used in future flying.

As for insurance, I have in the past, in at least one case been put on the insurance of a students owned aircraft (Piper Six) based on more than my total flight time. I had only about 400Hrs at the time. Someone from the insurance company called and interviewed me. I was 41 Years Old at the time, and had just finished over 20 Years of airforce flying (not as pilot) on patrol aircraft. He told me that these things, and not just my pilot hours, got me on the insurance without adding to the owners cost.

So I suppose its not completely bleak out there.

[sky's the limit]

I had a ex-airline captain in the Goose with me yesterday he told me he logged 200 take-off and landings through-out his entire career. He couldn't believe what we were doing in the goose and where we were doing it. Over the past 6 years I have averaged 3000 take off and landings per year. Thats 18,000 ups and downs. Crazy! Does it make me a better pilot..... who knows but man have I been having fun!

Well, by that critieria, 100+ t/o's and landings/day on some jobs should hold me in good standing, no? LOL, I too having been having a blast with it...

I agree that Hours alone is a very poor measuring stick by which to judge the competency level of a pilot, but in this day and age, the bigger problem is trying to find a CP or Ops Mgr somewhere who can actually relate to what you've done. Most IFR type outfits have Mgmt that has come throught the much talked about 200hr right seat KA/1900/Navajo route, and wouldn't know the first thing about the experience of a Coastal Float driver, Yukon Bush Pilots, or an Arctic Twin Otter/Beaver guy.

With a few expections of course, MOST pilots these days do not require the hands and feet, or wind and weather knowledge of the VFR bush world. They must be able to program the GPS/FMS, sound slick on the radio, and look good in a tie. There is no real requirement outside of the above mentioned areas and helicopters, where guys/gals NEED to be really "good" pilots.

I was through the Pt Hardy area a while back in crap wx, and Pasco's Beavers and Geese were all over the place, doing what they do every day, of course the 737/Airbus driver has no idea of what that entails, unless of course they came up that way. All we can do IMHO is to take pride in the work we do, be safe and efficient, and have a good(Private) chuckle when overhearing the Turbo Prop folks talking about that "stressful day of Hardball IFR..."

In rotary things are a bit different, you either have the skills/knowledge to get the job done safely and effiecienty, especially true in the mountians, or you don't. So when looking for work, it's more of "this is what I've done and can do," instead of just showing someone how many hrs you have. A guy with 4000hrs in Northern Alberta's flatlands, just isn't the same a guy with 1000hrs in the mountains.

STL

[DHQ]

I can sure appreciate the difference. I recently changed jobs and went from high cycle flying to low clycle flying. As it stands now, I've done 150h with this company and 28 cycles. We're 2 crew, so really I've only actually landed the airplane 14 times. Quite a contrast from doing 14 cycles every 2 hours.

[twotter]

The use of logged hours for determining pilot skills is over rated and not a nearly as reliable as how many cycles and in what enviroment the pilot conducted said cycles.

For instance we can use two cases, first a pilot on long haul flights to the Orient will do one take off and landing in say fifteen hours of logged flight time and a water bombing crew flying a scooper can do over a hundred cycles ( landing and take off. ) in the same amount of flight time.

Another issue is where these cycles take place, for instance a pilot landing and taking off from unprepared surfaces such as eskers in the High Arctic becomes far more skilled in airplane handling than a pilot landing on a long paved runway after an ILS approach.

This worship of logged hours is one of the most overated things in aviation.

Not to mention a very poor benchmark of skill.

Cat

Very well said Cat.. And I'm pleased to see that there is a lot of agreement here..

I just don't see how these long haul drivers can say they are current with their 4 take offs and landings per month..

Right now I average about 2.3 cycles per hour and I do believe it makes me a better pilot than someone who does .5 cycles per hour.. Just in currency of the take-off and landing phases.. We all know that you aren't going to crash at FL310...

[Lost in Saigon]

I just don't see how these long haul drivers can say they are current with their 4 take offs and landings per month..

Current at what? Landing an airplane? Flying safe? Making decisions? Interacting with their crew and passengers?

Current at knowing when to say NO?

The long haul drivers that I fly with do those things better than most short haul pilots. Not because of their hours, or cycles, but because of the many years of experience behind them. It is a pleasure to share the flight deck with these pilots because of the knowledge that can be picked up just by sitting beside them and watching them work.

I used to fly 10 cycles a day as a regional pilot. I even flew 50 cycles a day as a tanker pilot. I had flown with many very experienced pilots over the years and always tried to learn from them. But when I started to fly long haul, I was truly amazed at the level of experience and professionalism that these Captains possessed.

I think the measure of a qualified pilot should not be hours or cycles, but years of experience in the industry.

Maybe just another reason why they should not have to stop flying just because they were born 60 years earlier.

But that is another topic......................

[twotter]

Current at what? Landing an airplane? Flying safe? Making decisions? Interacting with their crew and passengers?

That is the only time these guys actually fly the airplane.. If they don't do the overshoot with the autopilot...

They are system managers now, not pilots.. They manage the airplane, not fly it.. The computers do that.. Don't even embarass yourself to tell us that people actually fly an airbus let alone a boeing..

[Cat Driver]

I see this conversation has not degenerated into childish insults yet so I wish to make another suggestion.

Would it make for a better all around pilot if all flight training for powered airplanes started by learning the actual flying skills in a Cub or Champ flying from a grass strip and once a set level of flying skills were attained they be issued certificate to progress into a FTU in controlled airspace?

By the way lets not get bogged down in comparing 703 /704 flying with airlines, they are completely different dicilpines, however if I'm on a computer operated airliner I hope the crew knew how to think outside SOP's and were skilled hands and feet pilots before becoming airline pilots.

Just in case something really weird happens...

Cat

[Hedley]

The days of someone learning to fly on a fabric-covered taildragger are long gone, ..

The insurance would be unobtainable (heck a C172 costs $6k to $9k per year to insure at an FTU); and

There are virtually no instructors left with tailwheel skills; and

Saddest of all, the Champs and Cubs and Chiefs are all gone, except for a few cherished and restored antiques.

I will still teach a rare, gifted student from zero hours on tailwheel, but there aren't many like you or me left - Transport works very, very hard and spends large quantities of the taxpayer's money to ensure that.

[2milefinal]

Cat,Yes I think that would be a good thing. Maybe flying floats would be a good as well.
The other thing I have always thought that should be added to list of things that a new pilot should have to do, is take a good quality maintenance course. I don't think a pilot should have to be able to change an engine on his/her own, but some good background knowledge would not hurt. (like knowing the differance between a bellcranck and a control rod)

[Panic]

flying from a grass strip ...

Don't you know that you need a special signoff to land on grass!



Sad part is that it is true. Must be something about grass that scares people...probably goes back to having to fly the airplane all the way to the tiedown....

[Cat Driver]

Mornin Hedley:

I'm stuck in Calgaryon my way home after wandering all over hell for the last week just F.T.D.

It wouldn't take any effort to start a training school like I just suggested, just get a couple of home built clones of a Cub or Champ find a grass strip and start bringing in your students, a new student will learn just as fast on a tail wheel as on a nose wheel and be a better pilot for it.

In fact I plan on doing exactly that, I'm going to set up a little operation to teach flying skills with my Cub when I get it finished, my school will not require a FTU OC and I will not be accountable to TCCA flight training, all I need to do is abide by the regulations concerning the operation of airplanes.

TCCA can lick my sack as far as I'm concerned...hey I take that back...I am perticular about who I let lick my sack.

Cat