A Line In The Sand

[Doc]

As pilots, we have to be willing to draw a line in the sand, and accept the fact, that there are different expectations of you depending on which side of that line you sit.
If you are one one side, you are in a position where you can be allowed the odd little "learning" experience. You land in a crosswind a little beyond your experience level, and around she goes. Ooops. It Happens. We all learn from it. Or perhaps, your Navajo gets a little sideways and takes out a runway light, or six. You dust yourself off, eat a little crow (served hot or cold right here on Avcanada.ca)and become a better pilot. Because you have learned something.

On the other side of that line however, you are expected to have learned your lessons. You are now entrusted with a fairly major responsibility. Perhaps you are strapped into a small biz jet. Maybe you're flying the paying public around in a nice turbine powered twin. Maybe you're on a big helicopter, flying medevacs. Or, perhaps you've made it to the "big" iron. Maybe WestJet or Air Canada? Or Jazz. Or Porter. First Air. The list goes on.
Here is where you will be treated a little differently. You are now in a very intolerant realm. And well it should be. The responsibilities have grown. So have the expectations. Of your passengers. Of your boss. If you screw it up here, don't expect your peers to pussy foot around the issue. They can't. The stakes are too high.

Oh, don't get me wrong. You can kill yourself in a 172 just as easily as in a 747. You just wont be as famous.

[spinjob]

Well put!

[Tim]

did something in particular prompt this post (let's hear the details) or was it just on your mind

[Rockie]

Part and parcel of being the professional that we all want to be called. We are expected to know what we're doing.

[iflyforpie]

Different expectations why? Would I be in any more or less immediate trouble if I let my Cessna run out of fuel like the AC pilots did with a 767 a few years back? Gravity still wins, but experience and good decision making helps moderate the damage.

One would hope that by the time you are flying big iron or something 'more important' that you have more skills and the likes of what you are talking about is less likely to happen and more damaging to reputation if it does, but lets face it, we are all human and all deserve a second chance.


There is no line in the sand for me. I would say it is more of a gradual transition from novice (200hrs) to seasoned (20,000+hrs). A second season charter pilot should be more rounded and responsible than a first season charter pilot. A Captain of a Beech 1900 should be more responsible and accountable than his or her F/O.

Oh, don't get me wrong. You can kill yourself in a 172 just as easily as in a 747. You just wont be as famous.

I can't name a single person who has killed themselves in a 747. All the [already] famous people seem to choose small planes like Beechcrafts, Saratogas, Citabrias, Cirruses, and Long-Ezes to kill themselves.

[Strega]

Doc

Once concern I have,

what type of pilot will be the one putting forth all of the SOPs and crap for the heavy iron drivers?

If we have no direction, and have to control pilots to the level they are simply robots, who will we have filling the shoes of the "good old guys" in the future?

[Cat Driver]

There is no line in the sand for me. I would say it is more of a gradual transition from novice (200hrs) to seasoned (20,000+hrs).

How about after you pass 30,000+ hrs?

[Rockie]

Hours, no matter how big the number, is nothing more than a measure of time spent sitting in a pilot's chair. It is the attitude, professionalism and innate talent of the pilot that determines what he's learned in that time. I've met some extremely high time guys who were consistently 3 steps behind where they should have been, and conversely some low time guys who were extremely sharp and capable.

There are many, many things that contribute to how good a pilot is, but I don't think there is a surefire formula.

[FL001]

Oh, don't get me wrong. You can kill yourself in a 172 just as easily as in a 747. You just wont be as famous.

I can't name a single person who has killed themselves in a 747. All the [already] famous people seem to choose small planes like Beechcrafts, Saratogas, Citabrias, Cirruses, and Long-Ezes to kill themselves.

Captain Jacob Veldhuyzen van Zanten comes to mind. 747 in Tenerife. I have to admit that I looked him up because I couldn't remember how to spell his name.

[iflyforpie]

My definition of famous means you don't have to explain to more than half the people in a room full of mixed company who that person is or look it up.

[fingersmac]

He meant the pilot would be famous because of all the media attention surrounding the crash of a large airliner. Killing yourself in a C172 wouldn't garner you the same media attention.

[xsbank]

Didn't you ever hear of that 150 that crashed in a Newfie graveyard? They've dug up 300 bodies so far and they say there are more to come!

In Canada, its more like peeing a line in the snow...

[C-GGGQ]

There is no line in the sand for me. I would say it is more of a gradual transition from novice (200hrs) to seasoned (20,000+hrs).

How about after you pass 30,000+ hrs?

aparently my grandfather never made it to seasoned since he retired with 15,000 hours but he was corperate

[Doc]

There is no line in the sand for me. I would say it is more of a gradual transition from novice (200hrs) to seasoned (20,000+hrs).

How about after you pass 30,000+ hrs?

aparently my grandfather never made it to seasoned since he retired with 15,000 hours but he was corperate

30,000 hours isn't "seasoned", it's starting to decay!!!

[square]

O...k, so it sounds like your point is it's okay for commercial pilots flying the paying public to make negligent mistakes, breaks regs and bend metal, as long as they don't have their ATPL? Or where's this line? And is it still okay if you have your ATPL but you're flying a King Air or something under 12,500? Cause I always thought a passenger deserved to be kept within the safe scope of whatever airplane they happen to be in, since they don't know to expect less of a lower time pilot, but I guess this is some kind of Christmas bonus for the young bucks. Way to lower expectations.

[iflyforpie]

How about after you pass 30,000+ hrs?

I don't know any pilot who's gone over 30,000. My CP stopped logging at 20,000 quite a few years ago, so he might be close. 30,000 is like 600 per year for 50 years straight.

Really, I should have said 10,000. You can be a senior airline captain, a crack chopper pilot, or an awesome bush pilot with 10,000 hours and the right attitude.

[Cat Driver]

I don't know any pilot who's gone over 30,000. My CP stopped logging at 20,000 quite a few years ago, so he might be close. 30,000 is like 600 per year for 50 years straight.

True, however lets try this.

85 hours a month will take 29.41 years.

Many pilots here flew over a hundred hours a month in the early part of their career, I know for sure I did.

It would then take 25 years to reach 30,000 hours.

There are lots of pilots out there who have far more than 30,000 hours.

There may not be a whole lot who managed to fly that much without having wrecked one though.

[Rockie]

Just count it in years .. The numbers are smaller and you don't have to fill in your logbook. And after 10,000 who cares anymore? If you don't know what you're doing by then another 20,000 isn't going to help.

[Cat Driver]

Just count it in years .. The numbers are smaller and you don't have to fill in your logbook. And after 10,000 who cares anymore? If you don't know what you're doing by then another 20,000 isn't going to help.

Exactly.

The real factor that is missed in the using hours flown is what kind of flying was being done.

100 hours long haul compared to 100 hours crop spraying for instance will make a big difference in the risk factor.

[Hedley]

I recall of reading about a Canadian pilot with over 60,000
hours logged. He did an awful lot of pipeline patrol, for
an awful lot of decades. Routinely (and legally) flew
well over 100hrs/month, I understand. Must have
been mind-numbingly boring.

IIRC he was inducted in the Canadian Aviation Hall
of Fame (?) and this piece of trivia came out during
his biography.

[Spokes]

There is no line in the sand for me. I would say it is more of a gradual transition from novice (200hrs) to seasoned (20,000+hrs).

How about after you pass 30,000+ hrs?

I suppose I'd get on AvCanada and pine for the 'good old days'..

Sorry, couldn't resist....

[Cat Driver]

I suppose I'd get on AvCanada and pine for the 'good old days'..

Sorry, couldn't resist....

[Prairie Chicken]

Doc's position is well taken. Like others, I wonder what initiated his original musings ....

I agree there is a difference between a rec pilot or pp taking a friend or family member for a ride, or a member of the public paying getting on a commercial flight. There are different expectations by the passengers. I'ts not an issue of what licence you hold, or the GTOW, but of what the public expectation is.

TC have a similar theory and that makes sense, given their mandate. Home builts still have placards warning they don't have a standard C of A. Limitations on rec av & ultra light pilots carrying pax. Training is greater for a cpl & atpl than for a pp. And part of TC's process for assessing a sanction (not applicable for SMS of course) seems to look at the same line in the sand that Doc has described.

I've never met any pilot who claimed to have 30,000 hours. There may be some in the world, but they must be few and far between. I did meet a pp who claimed to have 10K. I didn't believe him. Cat made a good point though. Another example: a 10,000 hour airline pilot sits at altitude with the autopilot on. Compare him to a high-time helicopter driver--who has more stick time?

Anyhow, food for thought ...

[Hedley]

Pretty well everyone will admit that skill is asymptotic with
respect to experience. A 10,000 hour pilot is probably as
good as he is ever going to get. He's probably not much
better than he was at 9,000 hours. In fact, as he gets older,
his vision and reflexes will deteriorate, which may or may
not matter, depending upon the type of flying he does.

I've been flying for a third of a century, and I'm willing to
admit that I'm probably not any better pilot than I was
1,000 hours ago. I'd be surprised to find a highly experienced
pilot that thought he had improved markedly in the last
1,000 hours.

I really doubt I'm going to get much better as a pilot, after I
fill up another logbook.

So, total experience is not that good an indicator.

What makes the difference to me is how much recent experience
I have. For example, if I've flown (eg) 50 hours in the last month
I'm going to be pretty sharp. If I haven't flown at all in the
last month - which pretty well never happens, thank god - I'm
going to be a bit rusty. I'm not sure how easy it is for other
people to notice the difference, but I can.

The thing about having a lot of experience is that you can
take longer and longer breaks, and your skill doesn't deteriorate
as much, as it would if you didn't have very much experience.

You take a 10,000 hour pilot, and if he doesn't fly for a year,
he's still going to be a pretty damned good pilot after the
break. However, you take a 100 hour pilot, if he doesn't
fly for a year, he's likely going to need some re-training
to be safe.

[Cat Driver]

I've never met any pilot who claimed to have 30,000 hours. There may be some in the world, but they must be few and far between.

Percentage wise there few.

Collectively there are many.

Like most agree though hours logged are a poor indicator of a pilots true ability.